From JonathanW at gbgcorp.com Wed Aug 1 00:54:20 2001 From: JonathanW at gbgcorp.com (Jonathan Wienke) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:54:20 -0700 Subject: DMCA loop hole Message-ID: <91A43FE1FA9BD411A8D200D0B785C15E0677A0@MISSERVER> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 362 bytes Desc: not available URL: From petro at bounty.org Wed Aug 1 01:31:54 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 01:31:54 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: References: <3B66809A.6842.48A7CE7@localhost> <003c01c119f6$1d0439f0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> <002501c11a49$7e78b820$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: This is truely humorous. As BU said earlier "You overestimate the average contextual awareness level of the typical cypherpunk reader I think." He's right. At 11:19 PM -0700 7/31/01, Tim May wrote: >At 10:19 PM -0700 7/31/01, Black Unicorn wrote: >>I've seen more of this in the white collar world, where billing records, >>transaction records and such were destroyed but the principal holds. > >IBM instructed employees to destroy records. At Intel, we destroyed records--I did so as part of the "Crush" program (to drive several competitors out of business). So long as we were not being ordered to turn over evidence, not any kind of crime. Were these destructions ordered because investigations were *known to be* imminent, or because someone was looking ahead and figured that someday someone might start an investigation, and it would be better if that stuff was already gone. Context. In one case you have a reasonable assumption that someone *is* going to look for that stuff. In the other, you don't have that assumption. It's not whether you commit the crime, it's whether you assume you're going to get investigated for it. >A bookstore is not "spoliating" for failing to keep records of who bought which books. > >Cop: "We have a court order requiring you to turn over all records concerning who bought the book "Applied Cryptography."" > >Store: "We don't keep records." > >Cop: "Why not?" > >Store: "None of your business." > >(Interjection by Black Unicorn: "The court is not amused.") > >Cop: "We could charge you with spoliation!" > >Store: "Go right ahead." > >(Interjection by Black Unicorn: "It's not nice to fool with Mr. Happy Fun Court.") That's not what he said at all. A book store owner has no expectation of being investigated for a selling a perfectly legal book, and no obligation to track the purchasers of it. However, if that conversation was between the "State Board of Equalization" (for those outside California this is the department that deals with state sales tax apparently): SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. STORE: "Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are gone". You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be happy. >>Still, based on what you seem to have read me as saying we probably lost a >>good deal of the context of the discussion. The original question, as I >>understood it, was what an individual who was faced with a clearly pending >>court action (or an existing court order) could to do frustrate that order and >>prevent certain materials from being distributed- _without consequences_. >>My discussion was limited to that context, though I did not probably clarify >>that sufficiently. > >The discussion included claims that those who use remailers, or who run remailers, may be guilty of spoliation. And it included comments that using offshore/unreachable methods if one ever expects to be charged is spoliation. No, that is not what Unicorn said. It is not "if one ever expects to be charged" although it could be argued that be suspecting that you were going to be charged you knew you were committing a crime, but I suspect that is tangental. >I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just some 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. No, but destroying audio tapes, or blanking over bits of them *is*. > >They didn't get John Gotti for whispering, so I doubt "spoliation" is nearly the tool you and Aimee Farr seem to think it is. There is a singnificant difference between Gotti and your bog-standard CP. Gotti could afford *really* good lawyers, and was making *real* money doing what he did. Most of us here aren't making anywhere near what Gotti did. If the Feds come after one of us, it's either for harassment--in which case a spoliation charge is as good as any (it doesn't matter whether they win or lose, they've raised the cost of whatever joe CP is doing enough that he's going to take up a cheap hobby like Golf or Sailing instead), or it's for something in which they already have a good amount of evidence, and the "spoliation" will be a bargaining chip in the proceedings (cop to and we'll drop -). From bob at black.org Wed Aug 1 03:34:39 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 03:34:39 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. Message-ID: <3B67DB3E.3203FD77@black.org> At 01:31 AM 8/1/01 -0700, Petro wrote: > >>I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just some 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. > > No, but destroying audio tapes, or blanking over bits of them *is*. Actually if Giotti found a tape recorder (or keyboard bug) in his house I'm pretty sure he'd do more than blank its bits... *legally*, and despite the obvious implication that someone's investigating something.. Behavior can't be 'contemptous' of court orders if there are none. You can't spoil evidence if the artifacts are not yet identified as evidence. Its not illegal for Condit to toss all the evidence of his fucking-anything-that-moves, because no judge has asked for it. From jya at pipeline.com Wed Aug 1 04:53:30 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 04:53:30 -0700 Subject: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime In-Reply-To: <001001c1191d$2fb21330$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <200108010852.EAA23372@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Black Unicorn wrote: >If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the >kind of shoes you were wearing. You'll have recourse eventually, but it will >be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an >attorney, and.... Yes, yes, and the claim that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, are what makes the United States a nation of laws less abided, less understood, less respected. Tim May's daily law-breaking is normal. Even lawyers do it. All believing they will never be targeted. But with 1 out of 8 US persons working in the law industry, and 1 out of 100 incarcerated, most of the population will one day will suffer forfeiture, do community service, make restitution, be on probation, wear tracking devices, be snooped on, hairy-eyeballed at a weekly upcoming case schedule, or just grouped into a conspiracy for being churned throught the justice system as a re-education in responsible citizenship. If you think you can avoid this re-education then you probably consider yourself above or outside the law, under the radar, unnoticeable, not worth the effort of authorities, never done anything illegal except a few things nobody knows about, or, best of all, a member of a privileged caste which is protected by a higher law for law enforcers-- like, a journalist, or a priest, or a doctor, or a TLA herding pre-defined miscreants toward the chute. That spooked miscreants stampede or mavericks hook a gut, well, that's just in guns and ammo. Watch what those dozen new CHIP units spook in the course of trying to keep up with runaway technology. Indictments for trailing edge tech is what is meant by "the kind of shoes you're wearing." Herding miscreants, avoiding the hard crimes committed at justice HQs, in order to not offend Boss, Congress, Stockholders, Voters. Mueller is likely to be worse than Freeh in the sense that he will favor what he thinks are his strengths and ignore his weaknesses -- hoping to mollify those above him doing the same, that is, never ever investigate the overseers, whisper secrets and provide perks to those who "watch the watchers." From FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com Wed Aug 1 02:01:02 2001 From: FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com (Your Membership Newsletter) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 05:01:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your Membership Exchange, #440 Message-ID: <20010801090102.B7E02836E2@rovdb001.roving.com> Your Membership Exchange, Issue #440 (August 1, 2001) ______________________________________________________ Your Membership Daily Exchange >>>>>>>>>>> Issue #440 <> 08-01-01 <<<<<<<<<<<< Your place to exchange ideas, ask questions, swap links, and share your skills! ______________________________________________________ Removal/Unsubscribe instructions are included at the bottom for members who do not wish to receive additional issues of this publication. ______________________________________________________ You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com ______________________________________________________ Today's Special Announcement: THE SECRET'S OUT! Million Dollar Earners & Leaders Worldwide Are Aligning Themselves With This Company. Why? Because of a product needed by the masses. A product ANYONE can market worldwide. A product that will create incomes never before seen. Official Pre-launch 7-01..Check Now for details NOW! http://www.cashpromotions.com/rdonecard.htm ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ >> Ideas, Tips, & Information JT Timmer: New virus alert >> Q & A ANSWERS: - My computer is asking for a .vxd file? R. Dry: Here's what to do so you're not bothered by this >> MEMBER SHOWCASES >> MEMBER *REVIEWS* - Sites to Review: #140, #141, #142, #143 & #144! - Site #139 Reviewed! ______________________________________________________ >>>>>> Ideas, Tips, & Information <<<<<< Do you have a special software program you find helpful, or even absolutely necessary? A neat tip that makes your online life a little easier? Share it and help other members save time, frustration, and a few steps in the learning curve. Submit your ideas, tips and information to MyInput at AEOpublishing.com From: JT Timmer - animal_instincts at ragingbull.com Subject: New virus alert I received notice of a new virus last week, and didn't pay much attention until I started receiving copies. Just thought others might like a heads up or more information about this. It's called the SirCam virus, and when it spreads, it sends an apparently random file from the harddrives of infected computers along with it. ANY file on your machine could be copied and sent to hundreds of other users. In some cases that could be simply embarassing. In others, depending on the contents of the file, it could be quite costly. The files I've gotten have ranged from 200k to slightly over 300k. For more info check out: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sircam.worm at mm.html and http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6647394.html?tag=owv For a fix, visit http://www.kaspersky.com/ for a trial download that will clean it out. JT Timmer >>>>>> QUESTIONS & ANSWERS <<<<<< Submit your questions & answers to MyInput at AEOpublishing.com ANSWERS: From incredibleincome2001 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 1 05:01:06 2001 From: incredibleincome2001 at yahoo.com (Make More Money Now) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 05:01:06 Subject: Earn $1,000 on EVERY $89 Sale!!! Message-ID: <200108011455.f71Et0J22617@rigel.cyberpass.net> -------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: This one-time message is in response to your online ad. You are NOT on a mailing list and you will NOT receive any more messages. Please send more details about your ad/offer. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Receive $1,000 Commission on a $89 Sale!! DID YOU MAKE $5,000 LAST MONTH? IF NOT, YOU NEED TO JOIN US TODAY! Imagine being able to market the hottest consumer savings package in America today! Imagine earning up to $1,000 each and every time someone joins for $89 DOWN! Imagine being plugged into a proven system that puts your entire business on auto-pilot and have you earning $3,000 every week! IT'S TRUE! You can be in business for $89 DOWN! And you can easily make $3,000 your very first week... and we'll show you how! Your business will literally explode overnight when you join our team and plug into our exclusive marketing system! For more INFO reply to IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com with in the subject line or JUST CLICK: mailto:IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com?subject=Send__INFO or call 877-783-3471 100% FINANCING - 100% CASH MACHINE EVERYBODY IS A PROSPECT - 98% APPROVED EARN $1,000 ON EVERY A THROUGH IF CREDIT SALE! EARN $1,000 ON EACH AND EVERY SALE TO INFINITY! We provide you with all the tools and marketing resources you will every need. The only thing you need to do is join our team and plug into our proven system for success today! ~~~~~~~~~~~ For more INFO reply to IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com with in the subject line or JUST CLICK: mailto:IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com?subject=Send__INFO or call 877-783-3471 Testimonies: This program is so easy, 'with your system I have made 13 sales first week'. That's $13000' this is the best program I've done and I've done them all! Richard SO. Memphis, TN I did it all with my computer! People sign up like crazy! First I said, ok, I am financially totally down, I need to give this one a try. But after two weeks I am already out of dept! Oh god, I did not expect that! And I am not a sales person and I did it! I am so excited, thank you Richard and Mary! Randy SO. Los Angeles, CA I am SPEECHLESS! With your FREE leads, and FREE unsecured Visa MC, I was able to advertise free & pay for faxes that got my phone ringing off the hook! I think I'll have 20 sales this month!!! I haven't even begun to download all the free software to make even more MONEY' Thanks guys Randy SO. Detroit MI I was in my chiropractor's office when the secretary was about to throw out a fax that they had just received. The fax was similar to this email and caught my eye. I did exactly what it told me to do (a fax blast) and in my second day I made $6,000. No hard selling, no hustling my friends, just friendly people looking at a great opportunity and wanting in. Even if it took me a month to make an extra $5,000 I would have been happy, but $6,000 in my second day, wow! I'm excited. Dave W. Newport Beach, CA If you have been looking for something that is not MLM, is turnkey and very easy to do, then join us now, This is the MOST EXPLOSIVE income opportunity we have ever seen. Sign up 3 people & earn $3,000! Sign up 10 people & earn $10,000...how much do you want? This is the easiest sale you will EVER make! GET STARTED WITH $89 DOWN + START EARNING $1,000 CHECKS YOUR FIRST MONTH! IMPORTANT: To remove please click: mailto:IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com?subject=remove ========================================================= This message is in full compliance with UP.SO. Federal requirements for commercial email under bill SO.1618 Title loll, Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(CO) passed by the 105th UP.SO. Congress and cannot be considered SPAM since it includes a remove mechanism. From Guest at WAREZ.com Wed Aug 1 14:39:03 2001 From: Guest at WAREZ.com (WAREZ.com) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 06:39:03 -1500 Subject: ڷ ġ !!!! Message-ID: <996615543.451@korea.com> http://www.WAREZi.com 진정한 정보공유를 위한 자료실 서치엔진 ! 각종 기본 정보교육에서 원하는 도구까지... 여러분이 사이트를 운영하고 있다면 지금 등록하십시요 ! http://www.WAREZi.com 그리고, 위 사이트는 앞으로 엄청나게 크게될 사이트 입니다. 링크교환도 문의받습니다만 .com .co.kr .net .org 만 링크교환됩니다. 그리고 www.WAREZi.com 으로 많은 방문자를 보내준 사이트 5개도 무료로 링크해 드립니다. 여러분의 사이트도 등록하시고, 사이트에 링크도 해두시면 여러가지로 편리할 것입니다. http://www.WAREZi.com 감사합니다. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 1 05:21:53 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 07:21:53 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Battling the Patent Trolls Message-ID: <3B67F461.325A157F@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/01/0051203.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Wed Aug 1 04:54:48 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 07:54:48 -0400 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: ; from tcmay@got.net on Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 07:15:29PM -0700 References: <3B66809A.6842.48A7CE7@localhost> <003c01c119f6$1d0439f0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <20010801075448.A18961@cluebot.com> On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 07:15:29PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > You talk a lot about "courts not being amused" but I can find no > evidence that such laws exist. Nor can I find any case where a Mafia > don was prosecuted for "spoliating" a future prosecution by > whispering. > > Do you have such examples? And an appeals court assessment of the examples? BU may be speaking of the attitude of a district judge when he learns what you've done. It may not be an offense in itself, but it skirts refusing a court order (in one hypothetical), and is really going to just piss the judge off. So many trials include both sides trying to convince the judge that they're taking reasonable positions, and occasionally getting blindsided by a pissed off judge when he thinks they're not. It's petty tyranny, true (look at my wired.com report on the Scarfo case and the judge getting pissed at press coverage of it) but it's what happens. -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 1 05:02:58 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:02:58 -0400 Subject: Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists In-Reply-To: <002001c11a44$80162dc0$00010a0a@thinkpad574>; from unicorn@schloss.li on Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 09:36:27PM -0700 References: <002001c11a44$80162dc0$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <20010801080258.B18961@cluebot.com> On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 09:36:27PM -0700, Black Unicorn wrote: > Oh great. > > Now every news story on this thing will be echoed by Mr. Choate directly to > the list without any introductory commentary. Yes. Don't feed the beast, or encourage him. That is not the path to cypherpunk salvation. -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 1 05:06:11 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:06:11 -0400 Subject: Trying again...[jsimmons@transvirtual.com: [OT] DMCA loop hole] In-Reply-To: <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk>; from k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk on Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 12:00:08PM +0100 References: <20010731232456.A26735@neutraldomain.org> <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20010801080611.C18961@cluebot.com> To add to what Ken wrote: * DMCA includes a research exemption that would cover this if virus writer was known and could be contacted, and probably even otherwise * If not know, that's probably because he's violating the law and, as a felon facing prosecution in multiple jurisdictions, won't be in a hurry to file lawsuits * If this were a problem, Congress would soon move to amend the DMCA -Declan On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 12:00:08PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: > Gabriel Rocha wrote: > > > ----- Forwarded message from James Simmons ----- > > [...] > > > Virus writers can use the DMCA in a perverse way. Because > > computer viruses are programs, they can be copyrighted just like a > > book, song, or movie. If a virus writer were to use encryption to hide > > the code of a virus, an anti-virus company could be forbidden by the > > DMCA to see how the virus works without first getting the permission > > of the virus writer. If they didn't, a virus writer could sue the > > anti-virus company under the DMCA! > > There was some discussion of this on the ukcrypto list recently, and, > IIRC, on Bugtraq. > > I think the general feeling (with all the usual IANAL floods) was that > courts will set aside copyright for reasons of public policy. If your > copyright (which virus writers have automatically, just like any other > writers) is causing big pain to the courts, or police, or large > corporations, then the courts won't bend over backwards to enforce it. > (Maybe the US-style libertarians here would find that a bad thing - if > they are consistent they ought not to approve of government agents > (courts) setting aside laws on private property in order to make their > own lives more convenient). > > Also, even if someone did sue for violation of their copyright and win, > what damages would a virus writer expect? Courts won't restore criminal > profits - if you get caught stealing, even if you can sue the person who > stopped you for unlawful arrest or whatever you can't sue them for > damages because you didn't make a profit out of the theft. > > Also, it might be argued (in the unlikely event that a case ever got > that far) that quoting the whole of a virus for combating it was fair > use. > > How the DMCA affects this I don't know. It goes way beyond the > old-established ideas of copyright, and into the dodgy depths of trade > secrets. It is one thing to say "this is mine, you can't use it" and > quite another to say "this is mine, you aren't even allowed to know what > it is". By analogy with real property, copyright says you can't have a > party in my garden without my permission; DMCA says you can't even take > photos of my garden from next door if you need to stand on a stepladder > to do it. In fact it says you can't even own the stepladder. > > My guess, which you may put down to cynicism if you want, is that if > your name is Disney, or Murdoch, or Turner, or Sony, or Warner, or EMI, > then the US courts will enforce your DMCA "rights". But if you happen to > be called "sub-tARyANyAN-c00l D00DZ", they probably won't. Between those > two extremes, it is likely to depend on your lawyers. > > Ken > > Ken From declan at well.com Wed Aug 1 05:26:03 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 08:26:03 -0400 Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010801082544.00a8aac0@mail.well.com> SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee hearing on "S.1233, the Product Package Protection Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes." Location: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Wed Aug 1 06:40:46 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:40:46 -0500 Subject: New magnetic semiconductor material spins hope for quantum computing Message-ID: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010801082047.htm James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From honig at sprynet.com Wed Aug 1 08:57:19 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 08:57:19 -0700 Subject: Trying again...[jsimmons@transvirtual.com: [OT] DMCA loop hole] In-Reply-To: <20010801080611.C18961@cluebot.com> References: <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> <20010731232456.A26735@neutraldomain.org> <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010801085719.008b8a10@pop.sprynet.com> At 08:06 AM 8/1/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >* If not know, that's probably because he's violating the law >and, as a felon facing prosecution in multiple jurisdictions, >won't be in a hurry to file lawsuits > Remember that one man's remote administration tool is another's trojan. A version of Back Orifice with 'advanced management features' (like, find every IIS on your net and install yourself there and fix the patch that let you in) would not be 'felonious' malware, just a power tool. From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 1 09:10:31 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:10:31 -0700 Subject: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas In-Reply-To: <20010731001204.5377.qmail@sidereal.kz> References: <3B65E737.E621DE0B@lsil.com> (mmotyka@lsil.com) Message-ID: <3B67C787.1363.39EE6D@localhost> -- Dark Unicorn: > > Not a particularly useful answer and not necessarily justifiable on the > > part of the court. I think eventually a better answer would have to be > > produced, one that justified the censorship. We're back to what > > originally struck me as odd, and wrong, about this item. Whoever has her > > stuff should copy it and move the copy offshore because something is > > very wrong on the part of the court. On 31 Jul 2001, at 0:12, Dr. Evil wrote: > Just because they're wrong and you're right doesn't benefit you at all > when you are in jail for contempt, losing your ass-cherry. The belief > to the contrary is what M. Unicorn would call a "classic Cypherpunk > fallacy". M. Unicorn is absolutely right here. Trusts are a great > thing which, in this case, allow you to completely achieve what you're > trying to achieve, while complying all of the court's instructions. > Use them! Why waste time being an outlaw? The point of using cryptography such purposes is to make ones non compliance undetectable, or at least unprovable. Trusts and the like raise a red flag. You are generating legal documents that advertise your intended non compliance and explain how you intend to do it. Further, if authorities really have the hots for you, they can apply pressure to the trust authority is all sorts of ways. They do not have to comply with the law -- you do. For example they could kidnap the child of the person holding the trust, and hint that in return for cooperation they will overlook the crack they planted on him, carrying a twenty year prison sentence. Encrypted data with a long passphrase will resist any amount of pressure. Legal solutions will not. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MkiOliQYRoCsvFgXrPssDQkVSSND546JvVIRynLL 46tYSopIdwQ4wSNumiw8frcVouKamWs1caYcGGMD4 From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 1 09:18:45 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:18:45 -0700 Subject: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. In-Reply-To: <002a01c119f2$219c3570$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B67C975.18492.417600@localhost> -- On 31 Jul 2001, at 11:53, Black Unicorn wrote: > I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among > cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with > impunity. And I would like to correct the common misconception spread by lawyers that there are magic legal formulas that will stop the state from using its power as it damn well pleases. The basic formula for avoiding inconvenient legislation is "ignore, do not confront" Cryptography will do what no legal incantation can ever do: Stop the state from getting what it wants. The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point you must explain to the authorities: "My actions were legal for this reason and that reason", explaining in inconveniently great detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and highly informative explanation will almost certainly be to hit a few times, and then lock you up. With cryptography they have a mysterious block of unexplained and useless bits. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG JANNmX0j07QW30P9Cc27QiqF8q5cpCo3I8liMPSB 49dFf40+yHv+hoo3KF4nAfKebsirpjIxk0HHs2agx From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 1 09:31:05 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:31:05 -0700 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> References: <20010731232456.A26735@neutraldomain.org> <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Message-ID: At 12:00 PM +0100 8/1/01, Ken Brown wrote: >How the DMCA affects this I don't know. It goes way beyond the >old-established ideas of copyright, and into the dodgy depths of trade >secrets. It is one thing to say "this is mine, you can't use it" and >quite another to say "this is mine, you aren't even allowed to know what >it is". By analogy with real property, copyright says you can't have a >party in my garden without my permission; DMCA says you can't even take >photos of my garden from next door if you need to stand on a stepladder >to do it. In fact it says you can't even own the stepladder. An odd metaphor, but maybe useful. Here goes: It's worse than that. It says that if I _deduce_ from people going in and out of his property and from noise levels and music that he is probably having a party, I am forbidden to tell others about it (because they might "circumvent" the secrecy and crash the party). And I am even forbidden from publishing or explaining in a public way how others may use my methods to deduce the existence of neighborhood parties. (The DMCA has very nebulous language about how "strong" the original protection (cipher strength, security strength) must have been, to protect against ROT-13 and Pig Latin being DMCA-protected. Utterly subjective, probably, though Bruce Schneier will probably earn some nice bucks being called as an expert witness.) >My guess, which you may put down to cynicism if you want, is that if >your name is Disney, or Murdoch, or Turner, or Sony, or Warner, or EMI, >then the US courts will enforce your DMCA "rights". But if you happen to >be called "sub-tARyANyAN-c00l D00DZ", they probably won't. Between those >two extremes, it is likely to depend on your lawyers. Some copyright holders are more equal than others. I don't see anyone clamoring that Tim's copyrights are being violated when his articles are bounced around the Net in the same way I see _some_ people yammering that Declan's and "Wired Online's" copyrights are being violated when _his_ articles are being bounced around. The issue is not that some outlets charge money, as most clearly don't. The only real difference between the "New York Times" going after those who forward its items and "Joe Sixpack" not going after them is that the courts will do the bidding of NYT but not JS. Nothing against Declan or "Wired Online," of course. Just noting that once again there seems to be a special status for Official Reporters, Official Publishers, Official Writers. Official Reporters are covered by Shield Laws, ordinary reporters are not. Official Publishers have law professors bemoaning violations of copyright, and so on. The recognition of some "professionals" is a much larger issue. Official Priests, for example, have priest-penitent protections that Reverend Tim of the Church of Joe-Bob does not have. And so on for dozens of other professions which gubments choose to bless with Official Status. Wrongly, in my carefully considered opinion. We are all reporters, all writers, all religious persons (even if atheists), all consultants, all persons equal under the law. "Make no law" means no special privileges for Approved Religions, for Approved Reporters, for Approved Marchers, for Approved Anyones. We went off the track a long time ago in deciding to grant quasi-official status to some members of some professions. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 1 09:37:22 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:37:22 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: <3B67C975.18492.417600@localhost> References: <3B67C975.18492.417600@localhost> Message-ID: At 9:18 AM -0700 8/1/01, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > -- >On 31 Jul 2001, at 11:53, Black Unicorn wrote: >> I wanted to make sure to correct the common misconception among >> cypherpunks that you can just thumb your nose at a court with >> impunity. > >And I would like to correct the common misconception spread by >lawyers that there are magic legal formulas that will stop the state >from using its power as it damn well pleases. > >The basic formula for avoiding inconvenient legislation is "ignore, >do not confront" > >Cryptography will do what no legal incantation can ever do: Stop >the state from getting what it wants. > >The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point >you must explain to the authorities: "My actions were legal for >this reason and that reason", explaining in inconveniently great >detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and >highly informative explanation >will almost certainly be to hit a few times, and then lock you up. >With cryptography they have a mysterious block of unexplained and >useless bits. Exactly so. This list, like so many other lists, is gradually moving toward "public politics" and "the law" as the focus of many members. The "public politics" part is obvious: discussions of boycotts of Adobe, letter-writing campaigns to Washington, complaining about Ashcroft and Feinstein and all of the other vermin, and hand-wringing about the need for different laws. The "law" part is about the above, and exhortations by the lawyers here (5, by my count) about what one mustn't do, how courts will react, the need to be scrupulously legal in all of one's actions, etc. "Laws of mathematics, not men." We risk becoming just a pale--a very, very pale!--imitation of the Cyberia-L list. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From ben at algroup.co.uk Wed Aug 1 01:42:21 2001 From: ben at algroup.co.uk (Ben Laurie) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:42:21 +0100 Subject: Criminalizing crypto criticism References: <20010727181340.915F07B59@berkshire.research.att.com> <20010731091457.0F4486E42@clueserver.org> Message-ID: <3B67C0ED.B53B55D6@algroup.co.uk> Alan wrote: > > On Friday 27 July 2001 11:13, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > > In message <20010727015656.A22910 at cluebot.com>, Declan McCullagh writes: > > >One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my > > >legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption > > >research. You can argue fairly persuasively that it's not broad > > >enough, and certainly 2600 found in the DeCSS case that the judge > > >wasn't convinced by their arguments, but at least it's a shield of > > >sorts. See below. > > > > It's certainly not broad enough -- it protects "encryption" research, > > and the definition of "encryption" in the law is meant to cover just > > that, not "cryptography". And the good-faith effort to get permission > > is really an invitation to harrassment, since you don't have to > > actually get permission, merely seek it. > > Even worse is if the "encryption" is in bad faith to begin with. (i.e. They > know it is broken and/or worthless, but don't want the general public to find > out.) > > Imagine some of the usual snake-oil cryto-schemes applied to copyrighted > material. Then imagine that they use the same bunch of lawyers as the > Scientologists. > > This could work out to be a great money-making scam! Invent a bogus copy > protection scheme. Con a bunch of suckers to buy it for their products. Sue > anyone who breaks it or tries to expose you as a fraud for damages. > > I mean if they can go after people for breaking things that use ROT-13 > (eBooks) and 22 bit encryption (or whatever CSS actually uses), then you can > go after just about anyone who threatens your business model. > > I guess we *do* have the best government money can buy. We just were not the > ones writing the checks... The fundamental problem is that crypto for rights protection doesn't work in general, and certainly can't work where the decryption technology has to be in the hands of the person you are trying to protect it from. Criticising the DMCA because it protects weak crypto seems to me to be the wrong angle - it doesn't matter whether the crypto is weak or strong, it can be broken. The important thing is that we should continue to be able to demonstrate that fact. Rights management can only be done by legal and social means, not technological ones. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From NudeCelebirtys111 at n2mail.com Wed Aug 1 06:46:14 2001 From: NudeCelebirtys111 at n2mail.com (Britney Spears) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Nude Celebirty's ( Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez........) Message-ID: <200108011346.JAA26798@bobafett.vma.verio.net> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Britney Spears (NudeCelebirtys111 at n2mail.com) on Wednesday, August 1, 2001 at 09:46:09 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- message: NUDE CELEBIRTY's Britney Spears Pamala Anderson Carmen Electra Brooke Shields Cindy Crawford Bianca Jagger Demi Moore Alicia Silverstone Christina Applegate Cameron Diaz Celine Dion Christie Brinkley Calista Flockhart And Many Many More! There are THOUSANDS of VIDEO's,PIC's,AVI's + MORE! NO CREDIT CARD REQUIRED. Click here! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 1 10:03:33 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:03:33 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: References: <3B66809A.6842.48A7CE7@localhost> <003c01c119f6$1d0439f0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> <002501c11a49$7e78b820$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: At 1:31 AM -0700 8/1/01, Petro wrote: >This is truely humorous. > >As BU said earlier "You overestimate the average contextual >awareness level of the typical cypherpunk reader I think." > >He's right. Coming from you (which one of you is Petro and which one is Reese?), quite a compliment. > A book store owner has no expectation of being investigated >for a selling a perfectly legal book, and no obligation to track the >purchasers of it. Even if a book store _expects_ to be investigated (or worse), there are simply no laws requiring tracking purchasers. Drug dealers and hookers are charged, for example, for specific alleged violations, not for failing to keep records of their past transactions so as to help their prosecution. A bookie who keeps his records in his head is not "spoliating" because he failed to keep records in a prosecutor-friendly form. > However, if that conversation was between the "State Board of >Equalization" (for those outside California this is the department >that deals with state sales tax apparently): > >SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. >STORE: "Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire >on my desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are >gone". > >You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be happy. Only because there are SPECIFIC STATUTES that require the keeping of certain tax and financial records, and thus it is up to a judge to decide whether that "really weird fire" was in fact deliberate destruction of required records. There is no such requirement that people tape their phone calls, log their contacts, keep diaries, or store copies of cryptographic keys in places prosecutors can later obtain them. (This last point being the gist of the key escrow debate, of course). Purging old files and old papers is part of regular housecleaning. Whether one _thinks_ some prosecutor would be happy to find such papers is irrelevant. >>I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just >>some 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive >>tape recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption >>is spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. > > No, but destroying audio tapes, or blanking over bits of them *is*. Cites? Many people get rid of old tapes. Recording over answering machine tapes is not a crime. If Gary Condit expected he would be questioned by the police, was he under some actual legal obligation to "lock down his office" (and apartment) so as to preserve it for investigators a couple of months down the road? Of course not. "You snooze, you lose." >> >>They didn't get John Gotti for whispering, so I doubt "spoliation" >>is nearly the tool you and Aimee Farr seem to think it is. > > There is a singnificant difference between Gotti and your >bog-standard CP. Gotti could afford *really* good lawyers, and was >making *real* money doing what he did. > You might be surprised how much money some of us make compared even to mafiosos. And the point above just as easily could have been that bookies are charged with spoliation for having kept their records in their heads instead of in some subpoena- or warrant-friendly form. Ditto for hookers not charged for having failed to keep records on their clients. The point is that spoliation is used only in narrow situations. Findlaw and Google have numbingly boring articles on its limitations. Black Unicorn seems to be trying to scare remailer operators out of business by claiming that they are likely facilitating such spoliations. This seems to be the business of lawyers, to warn that nearly everything is illegal. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 1 10:17:58 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:17:58 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim May wrote: > The "law" part is about the above, > and exhortations by the lawyers > here (5, by my count) about what > one mustn't do, how courts will > react, the need to be scrupulously > legal in all of one's actions, etc. > > "Laws of mathematics, not men." > > We risk becoming just a pale--a > very, very pale!--imitation of > the Cyberia-L list. As a probable member of Tim's "Gang of Five" I am on the cusp between two equally true facts about Cypherpunk "ideology" and the law. 1) "Cypherpunks write code." This metaphorical admonition tells us to make the laws irrelevant by outrunning them with technology. I couldn't agree more. I don't see much benefit in asking the nice lawmakers to do fuck us so badly, please. Better to take steps that put us outside of their reach. 2) "Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time." You have to know what the law is likely to do so that you can "write code" in a manner that is likely to be the most effective from a technological AND legal view. Otherwise, you cannot do any sort of meaningful risk/benefit analysis. It is on this second point that I had a very disappointing interaction with Tim at a physical Cypherpunks meeting some years ago. Tim was carrying a concealed knife that did not comply with California's concealed carry laws. I mentioned this to him, and he immediately interrupted my explanation by saying, "I don't care what the law is, I'll do what I want." (This from a guy who slavishly insures and registers his car. I guess some laws are more equal than others.) Now here's the funny part. In California, (with some specific exceptions) carrying a concealed knife is a felony, while carrying a concealed pistol is a misdemeanor (for the first weapons offense). So given the relative severities of the laws, why in the world would you carry a knife instead of a gun? (Insert stupid joke here about an engineer bringing a knife to a gun fight.) My point is that there is a middle ground between Unicorn and Tim's positions. Do the Cypherpunk thing, but be cognizant of the relevant laws. Remember, lawyers are hackers too, just in a different arena. If you come up with two equally great techno-hacks to solve a problem, one of which is probably legal and one of which is probably not, picking the legal one is a no-brainer. S a n d y From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Wed Aug 1 07:21:40 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:21:40 -0400 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. Message-ID: > From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] > > I also made some speculative suggestions about what encrypting such data > might > look like in a test case extending the facts to be a bit more edgy just to > see > where the limits were. Such a test case (of which there are none to my > knowledge) would easily present a close issue to argue if a savvy > prosecutor > were around. I'm not sure anyone could tell how it would come out. > Consider > it a cautionary note for cypherpunks designing evidence destroying > (concealing, whatever) systems. > BU: You may be a lawyer, but I'm a cryptographic software engineer. Cleansing disks and memory of keys and plaintext isn't done to prevent some hypothetical court from looking at evidence; there are good, legally unremarkable reasons to do so, which are regarded as good hygiene and 'best practice' in the industry. You've seen the posts on the 'sircam' virus, haven't you? All kinds of private documents flying around the world due to some asshole who gets egoboo out of smashing things. Keeping your documents encrypted helps protect against this kind of illegal surveillance. Backing them up on other computers (encrypted or otherwise) prevents them from being lost to a destructive virus. This is often easier than making copies on removable media. Running wipe programs such as BCwipe is also best practice - I've seen attacks which were based on searching swap files, end-of-file slack space, and unused blocks for 'interesting' data - whether keys (which can be recognized by their low redundancy) or passphrases (look for a printable string on it's own among a sea of binary data as the first cut). Did you know that Windows NT includes a switch to zeroize the swap file on system shutdown? Does Microsoft also need the 'cautionary note' you refer to above? (Yes, they did the right thing at least once :-). As one of the more experienced cryptoengineers at my company, I often wind up training new hires in the ways writing sensitive security software differs from ordinary programming. One of the most important lessons I impart is the necessity of zeroizing all sensitive data as soon as it's need has passed. The programmers also need to be very aware of how procedure calls use the stack, how the heap works, and the implications of garbage collection, disk and memory defragmentation. Destroying sensitive data is part of doing the job right, in a professional, 'best practice' manner. Peter Trei RSA Security From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 1 10:32:59 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:32:59 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:17 AM -0700 8/1/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >It is on this second point that I had a very disappointing interaction with >Tim at a physical Cypherpunks meeting some years ago. Tim was carrying a >concealed knife that did not comply with California's concealed carry laws. >I mentioned this to him, and he immediately interrupted my explanation by >saying, "I don't care what the law is, I'll do what I want." (This from a >guy who slavishly insures and registers his car. I guess some laws are more >equal than others.) It is utterly irresponsible for you to discuss this on a list frequented by narcs and informants and even prosecutors. >Now here's the funny part. In California, (with some specific exceptions) >carrying a concealed knife is a felony, while carrying a concealed pistol is >a misdemeanor (for the first weapons offense). So given the relative >severities of the laws, why in the world would you carry a knife instead of >a gun? (Insert stupid joke here about an engineer bringing a knife to a gun >fight.) So, Sandy, turn me in. Oh, I guess in your mind you just did. Unbelievable behavior, narcing out a fellow list member. Sandy should be ashamed. The prosecutors who read this list must be chortling. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Wed Aug 1 08:42:25 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:42:25 -0500 Subject: Anti-rip CD system bypassed Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/20766.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Wed Aug 1 08:47:27 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:47:27 -0500 Subject: New microscope makes images using antimatter Message-ID: http://www.sciam.com/news/080101/2.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From viewlet_network at qarbon.com Wed Aug 1 11:01:17 2001 From: viewlet_network at qarbon.com (viewlet_network at qarbon.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:01:17 -0700 Subject: Welcome to ViewletBuilder Message-ID: <200108011801.LAA32177@jetsoftware.com> Thank you for downloading ViewletBuilder! Once you start making Viewlets, you'll see how easy and fast ViewletBuilder is to use. However, if you run into any problems, please check our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) at: http://www.qarbon.com/faqs/index.html Or email us at mailto:support at qarbon.com We hope you enjoy using ViewletBuilder - we encourage you to make and post as many Viewlets as you would like. If you feel the banners that automatically appear within your Viewlets are a bit distracting or inappropriate, never fear... Simply visit http://www.qarbon.com/products/viewletbuilderpro/index.html for info on how to create and post bannerless Viewlets. Or, if you prefer, contact us directly at mailto:sales at qarbon.com . We'd love to hear from you. Enjoy ViewletBuilder! --The ViewletBuilder Support Team-- .. From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 1 11:05:41 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:05:41 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim May wrote: > It is utterly irresponsible for > you to discuss this on a list > frequented by narcs and informants > and even prosecutors. No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on this list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade your home. If they end up shooting you (and I think their is a significant likelihood that they will), it will be in large part because of your macho siege mentality. > Unbelievable behavior, narcing out > a fellow list member. Sandy should > be ashamed. I "narced out" your behavior of several years ago. If you are stupid enough to still be carrying a knife illegally (when there are plenty of legal options), then there is no helping you. On your head be it. > The prosecutors who read this list > must be chortling. More likely they are saying, "Ah fuck, I wish we'd known that before Sandfort wised Tim up. Now we'll just have to go with plan B and shoot him when we raid his house with a trumped up search warrant." And like Vinnie told you, the ones they send after you will be a LOT better than he is. From nobody at dizum.com Wed Aug 1 02:30:44 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:30:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. Message-ID: <192cbd3272c5f97f5ca5f955a1ed041d@dizum.com> Black Unicorn wrote: > A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It > quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it > is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about > _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. Come now, surely justice, right, and wrong are lurking in there somewhere? The word "justice" is used frequently by the legal crowd. For examples, "the Justice Department", "The Justices of the Supreme Court", and that blindfolded lady with the scales, all suggest to the general public that the idea is to somehow provide justice. Nearly everybody who is not a lawyer believes that's a service a legal system is intended to provide. Perhaps I miss your point. Is your statement intended as a condemnation of the U.S. legal system? Which legal systems do you believe are about justice, right, and wrong? From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Aug 1 02:37:48 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:37:48 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Pointers to news sources and other mailing lists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: > First, you will of course find that no one but yourself will check > the "yahoogroups" ghetto site. (If you are not familiar with the Possible, but at least I've got an archived list of cpunx-related material, which I can reference later (with other newssources, this happens rather frequently). So, in case none of you is running a newssink, I'll just go ahead, and make a new one, even if it's just for my private use. > Second, I'm confused. You say you have bad connectivity at work and > no connection at home. If you can take Choate's URL pointers and > follow them, why can you not go directly to the source (Yahoo, > Slashdot, CNET, Wired, etc.)? And how will you access Yahoo groups > with poor/zero connectivity? I'm at work: where I'm supposed to work. Apart from the fact of lacking time to waste, the ssh link to a remote machine tends to sudden lapses into 10 sec latency, making mail writing a chore if not impossible. I hope to have at least a dialup at home by tomorrow, thus removing any good excuses for being lazy. > > If you connectivity is so bad, why are you sending _us_ URL pointers? My web connectivity over loaded ISDN is actually better than my realtime editing ASCII connectivity over ssh over said link. From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 1 11:43:11 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:43:11 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:17 AM -0700 8/1/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Now here's the funny part. In California, (with some specific exceptions) >carrying a concealed knife is a felony, while carrying a concealed pistol is >a misdemeanor (for the first weapons offense). So given the relative >severities of the laws, why in the world would you carry a knife instead of >a gun? (Insert stupid joke here about an engineer bringing a knife to a gun >fight.) Aside from the other issues, I'll address this point just on its own merits. I know of many arguments that a knife can be gotten into a fight and used effectively _faster_ than a gun can, especially in very close quarters. (Which is where a mugging is likely to occur.) This is much debated in places like misc.survivalism and martial arts groups, but views are heard on both sides. Cops of course carry guns, but then they are likely to engage targets from further distances than most of us can when suddenly attacked. I think it plausible that inside an arm's length radius, a man with a knife can incapacitate a man with a gun faster than vice versa. Some expert knife folks _claim_ (no opinion offered here) that they can close a 15-foot gap and incapacitate a man reaching for a gun faster than he can get go to the gun, aim, and fire (let alone hit on the first or Nth shot). Whatever. Knives are easier to carry in urban situations without causing ANY legal problems. Knives also have other uses; I use mine nearly everyday for some task or another. Next, the laws about knives, concealed or otherwise, are complicated...and are seldom-enforced even as written. The knife Sandy saw was not even concealed: it was a single-edged Cold Steel Safe-Keeper, in a belt sheath. _Some_ prosecutors might claim it was a "push knife," but: a) Push knives are not banned, even by California's bizarre laws. It's just not one of the "banned" forms (ballistic knives, shurikens, sword canes), and it sure ain't "concealed" if it's in a belt sheath. And the sharpening on only one edge is yet more evidence that it ain't a "dagger" (though I see plenty of SCA people blithely carrying sheathed daggers, even stuck in belt loops under robes and other clothing, and hence "concealed"--no cop in the land will bust someone in this situation). (A useful reference is http://home.earthlink.net/~jkmtsm/calaw.html, which also has links to the relevant California codes.) b) California changed its laws about concealment of knives to allow _far_ more deadly knives to be freely carried, even concealed.I usually carry a quick-opening (_very_ quick-opening) Benchmade folder. I carried the Cold Steel because it was open carry, hence no issue of concealment. And since it wasn't a banned form, even by the pre-'96 rewrite of the laws, it wasn't illegal. c) Even with the old laws, when was the last time there was a knife prosecution, as opposed to busting someone for unlicensed carry of a handgun? The latter outnumber the former by probably 1000-to-1, even though carry of knives in various "concealed" ways (in purses, under coats, in backpacks, in the tops of boots, etc.) probably outnumbers concealed carry of handguns by a factor of 100-to-1. Do the math. d) The encounter Sandy describes took place in a conference room inside Cygnus Support offices in an office complex. Last I checked, this was not public property, not even by today's liberal standards. In fact, no different from my demonstrating a Glock or SIG at a Cypherpunks meeting held at my house. Now if Cygnus Support had a problem, or the owner of the leased facilities had a problem, they could have told me to put the knife away (though this actually makes it even _more_ concealed, as anyone who follows the debate knows--it's the opinion of some that the only way to get a kitchen knife home from a department store without _technically_ violating the concealed carry laws is to have it in a locked box). e) Most cops would rather have people carrying concealed knives, a la folders, than wearing knives on their belts. Something about scaring the horses, even if open carry is legally the more "technically correct" thing (especially pre''96) to do. Now, would I carry a knife into one of the Del Torto Cypherpunks meetings held (foolishly) inside a San Francisco police training facility? No. Yet another reason I wouldn't go to such a CP meeting. A foolish meeting location, counter to nearly everything we once supported. But carrying a perfectly legal knife in a perfectly legal way (open carry, unconcealed) on private property, displaying no "intent" to use it illegally (*)...what does Sandy have to complain about? (* "Intent" shows up in a lot of the California, Colorado, and other cases involving knives taken from suspects during pat-downs. But since I was legal in all ways, I won't even open this can of worms.) My reply to Sandy at the time was what I generally say to anyone who lectures me on laws. I'm more aware than most of what the laws say. I don't need busybodies lecturing me on their opinion of what the law allows and doesn't allow. For Sandy to attempt to bring me to the attention of the cops remains despicable. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 1 11:49:51 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:49:51 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 11:05 AM -0700 8/1/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Tim May wrote: > >> It is utterly irresponsible for >> you to discuss this on a list >> frequented by narcs and informants >> and even prosecutors. > >No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on this >list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade your home. If you don't like my views, read only the items you approve of. > If >they end up shooting you (and I think their is a significant likelihood that >they will), it will be in large part because of your macho siege mentality. Rage on. >I "narced out" your behavior of several years ago. If you are stupid enough >to still be carrying a knife illegally (when there are plenty of legal >options), then there is no helping you. On your head be it. It wasn't illegal then, and not now. That knife was a) not concealed, b) not on a list of illegal knives (throwing stars, switchblades, sword canes, ballistic knives, gravity knives), c) was on Cygnus Support property. >More likely they are saying, "Ah fuck, I wish we'd known that before >Sandfort wised Tim up. Now we'll just have to go with plan B and shoot him >when we raid his house with a trumped up search warrant." > >And like Vinnie told you, the ones they send after you will be a LOT better >than he is. Same old song. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 1 11:51:54 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:51:54 -0700 Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alan Olsen wrote: > I don't think Safeway is going to > start carrying "PornoPops" any time > soon. If they do, I'm sure they don't snap, crackle or pop--they just bang all night. S a n d y From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Wed Aug 1 04:00:08 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:00:08 +0100 Subject: Trying again...[jsimmons@transvirtual.com: [OT] DMCA loop hole] References: <20010731232456.A26735@neutraldomain.org> Message-ID: <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Gabriel Rocha wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from James Simmons ----- [...] > Virus writers can use the DMCA in a perverse way. Because > computer viruses are programs, they can be copyrighted just like a > book, song, or movie. If a virus writer were to use encryption to hide > the code of a virus, an anti-virus company could be forbidden by the > DMCA to see how the virus works without first getting the permission > of the virus writer. If they didn't, a virus writer could sue the > anti-virus company under the DMCA! There was some discussion of this on the ukcrypto list recently, and, IIRC, on Bugtraq. I think the general feeling (with all the usual IANAL floods) was that courts will set aside copyright for reasons of public policy. If your copyright (which virus writers have automatically, just like any other writers) is causing big pain to the courts, or police, or large corporations, then the courts won't bend over backwards to enforce it. (Maybe the US-style libertarians here would find that a bad thing - if they are consistent they ought not to approve of government agents (courts) setting aside laws on private property in order to make their own lives more convenient). Also, even if someone did sue for violation of their copyright and win, what damages would a virus writer expect? Courts won't restore criminal profits - if you get caught stealing, even if you can sue the person who stopped you for unlawful arrest or whatever you can't sue them for damages because you didn't make a profit out of the theft. Also, it might be argued (in the unlikely event that a case ever got that far) that quoting the whole of a virus for combating it was fair use. How the DMCA affects this I don't know. It goes way beyond the old-established ideas of copyright, and into the dodgy depths of trade secrets. It is one thing to say "this is mine, you can't use it" and quite another to say "this is mine, you aren't even allowed to know what it is". By analogy with real property, copyright says you can't have a party in my garden without my permission; DMCA says you can't even take photos of my garden from next door if you need to stand on a stepladder to do it. In fact it says you can't even own the stepladder. My guess, which you may put down to cynicism if you want, is that if your name is Disney, or Murdoch, or Turner, or Sony, or Warner, or EMI, then the US courts will enforce your DMCA "rights". But if you happen to be called "sub-tARyANyAN-c00l D00DZ", they probably won't. Between those two extremes, it is likely to depend on your lawyers. Ken Ken From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 1 12:05:38 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:05:38 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eugene Leitl wrote: > There's no point in giving idle > feds extra angles to enter > people's homes, preventably so. Eugene, do you think feds enter people's home because the people in question may have carried a knife illegally years ago? What federal law? What basis for a search warrant? What the hell are you talking about? > Even if they just pay a friendly > visit, I think there are much more > interesting ways to spend one's > afternoon than having to deal with > nosy feds. Then tell them to get the hell off your property if they don't have a warrant. That takes 5 seconds of your afternoon. > There's always a certain amount > of testosterone flowing, and > some posturing on cpunx. These > are males' natural weaknesses, > and exploiting them just because > you can is usually considered bad > personal style. You know, using the passive voice in this context is "bad personal style." Don't speak for anyone but yourself. If you think it's bad, just say so. Don't hide behind "is usually considered." Any whether you like it or not--whether anyone likes it or not, like Tim says, "I'll do what I want." > > I "narced out" your behavior > > of several years ago. If you > > are stupid > > How is that relevant? Statute of limitations for starters. I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the student. > > enough to still be carrying a > > knife illegally (when there are > > plenty of legal options), then > > there is no helping you. On > > your head be it. > > Oh yeah, I ratted on you, and > you're solely to blame for that. > Makes sense. Then versus now. Think about it. > Nothing goes over a little bit of > comic relief. Haw! Haw! Haw! What I said was funny, but the underlying reality is serious--deadly serious. Tim's playing to the galleries increases his risk whether he or wish to acknowledge it or not. > I think you should keep these > names and stories to yourself, > even if they do contribute to > the local colorit. And I think you should stuff a sock in your cake hole. So we both have opinions and we disagree. I can live with that. S a n d y From aimee.farr at pobox.com Wed Aug 1 10:08:04 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:08:04 -0500 Subject: Spoliation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Apologies if this is a repeat, I never received it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Aimee Farr [mailto:aimee.farr at pobox.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:35 PM > To: Black Unicorn > Cc: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: RE: Spoliation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails > reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas > > > Unicorn wrote: > > > Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't > > really comment > > on that aspect or what a court will consider "impossible." > What will not > > amuse a court is the appearance of an ex ante concealment or > disclosure in > > anticipation of court action. If it looks like you knew it was > > going to be a > > court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're > in trouble. > > Not only that but if you encrypt the stuff and it doesn't appear to be > > recoverable it almost sounds tantamount to destruction of evidence or > > spoliation (much more serious). ("The intentional destruction of > > evidence... > > The destruction, or the significant and meaningful alteration of > > a document or > > instrument...") I've never seen a case play out like that but I would > > certainly make the argument as a prosecutor. > > I think the courts will reach for spoliation, too. (Sanctions, > penalties, legal presumptions -- all the way to a default > judgment.) I brought this up in another thread, either the one > dealing with timed-key memoirs (Tim called this a "beacon") or > logs, but the conversation was soon whittled to dribble. > > > There are legitimate purposes for escrowing it on the Isle of > Man over and > > above keeping it out of a court's hands. The key is to have > _some_ leg to > > stand on when asked "if not trying to thwart the authority of > > this court, why > > did you do that." Good answers might sound like: "I wanted the > > proceeds of > > the manuscripts sale protected in trust for my grandchildren." > > *gaf* :-) > > In another digital datahaven (not Freenet), security and > anonymity are legitimate purposes standing by themselves. As you > noted, the one-time involvement of offshore counsel suggests > sophistication. > > Do any of the IAALs think the courts would recognize a written, > good faith "datahavening" policy (for business), or a consistent > personal practice (for individuals), and engage in the legal > fiction of permissible destruction by unavailability? Seems like > that is the rationale underlying the spoliation cases - > consistency and good faith (legitimacy). > > D: "I datahaven (however you do it) with X all my [data] weekly > as a matter of regular practice." > > D: "I did so prior to having any knowledge of the relevance of > this data or the likelihood of litigation." (nor should I have) > > X: "X is a digital information privacy trust, managed by Y, > allowing individuals to datahaven their personal papers for > posterity and WorldGood -- for the benefit of future researchers, > and their blood descendants. Clients include members of the > United States Congress, world political figures, members of the > intelligence community, journalists, human rights activists, and > everyday individual diary-keepers." > > X: "X uses timed encryption and biometric identification." > (Sorry, no passwords.) > > Which is the idea expressed the following paper, but "Tim May > said..." (Mr. May inferred this was an old idea, and that it was > better to use traditional means.) > > @ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=266153 > (some discussion of the erosion of the 4th and 5th Amendments in > regard to the protection of personal papers, as well as > contemporary commentary on the chilling effects of keeping > personal diaries, "flammable materials," etc.) > > I am also reminded of those e-death comz (if they aren't dead > themselves by now). You compose your goodbye email, and when your > nominee notifies the company of death --- everybody finds out > what you really thought of them. > > The hard part is coming up with "good faith" arguments. (I know > Mr. Unicorn was speaking off the cuff -- and still came up with > some really good ones. No doubt he could do better.) Still, > posterity would seem to be a weighty argument, and a sincere one. > > ~Aimee From mmotyka at lsil.com Wed Aug 1 12:14:48 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:14:48 -0700 Subject: Criminalizing crypto criticism Message-ID: <3B685528.73C3334@lsil.com> I keep seeing words like "bona fide" and "legitimate" used as modifiers for "cryptographic researcher." The DMCA states : (3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and Isn't self-taught a legitimate course of study? Abraham Lincoln was largely self-taught. If a teenager, who has clearly not had the opportunity to amass much in the way of official credentials, can break CSS hasn't he "engaged in a legitimate course of study" and isn't he "appropriately experienced in the field of encryption technology?" The modifiers are meaningless as is 3B. Why do we even discuss the damn thing. It's just another rathole to dive into. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. Short of nuclear blackmail Congress will not change it and the courts will not overturn it. I'll let the lawyers and those with deep pockets fight that battle. About the only good I might be able to do is to contribute to enhancing the means for people to exchange and distribute proscribed information with impunity. From alan at clueserver.org Wed Aug 1 12:14:54 2001 From: alan at clueserver.org (Alan Olsen) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010801082544.00a8aac0@mail.well.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and > Competition Subcommittee hearing on "S.1233, the Product Package Protection > Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes." Location: 226 > Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 > http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary Looking for the "Crack" in "snap, crackle, and pop"? I would be interested in attending this just to try and figure out what the HELL they are worried about. I don't think Safeway is going to start carrying "PornoPops" any time soon. 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. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman From john678 at alloymail.com Wed Aug 1 12:26:38 2001 From: john678 at alloymail.com (john678 at alloymail.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:26:38 Subject: toner Message-ID: <578.198327.234379@alloymail.com> **** VORTEX SUPPLIES **** LASER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGES, COPIER AND FAX CARTRIDGES SAVE UP TO 30% FROM RETAIL ORDER BY PHONE:1-888-288-9043 ORDER BY FAX: 1-888-977-1577 E-MAIL REMOVAL LINE: 1-888-248-4930 UNIVERSITY AND/OR SCHOOL PURCHASE ORDERS WELCOME. (NO CREDIT APPROVAL REQUIRED) ALL OTHER PURCHASE ORDER REQUESTS REQUIRE CREDIT APPROVAL. PAY BY CHECK (C.O.D), CREDIT CARD OR PURCHASE ORDER (NET 30 DAYS). IF YOUR ORDER IS BY CREDIT CARD PLEASE LEAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD # PLUS EXPIRATION DATE. IF YOUR ORDER IS BY PURCHASE ORDER LEAVE YOUR SHIPPING/BILLING ADDRESSES AND YOUR P.O. NUMBER OUR NEW , LASER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGE, PRICES ARE AS FOLLOWS: (PLEASE ORDER BY PAGE NUMBER AND/OR ITEM NUMBER) HEWLETT PACKARD: (ON PAGE 2) ITEM #1 LASERJET SERIES 4L,4P (74A)------------------------$44 ITEM #2 LASERJET SERIES 1100 (92A)-------------------------$44 ITEM #3 LASERJET SERIES 2 (95A)----------------------------$39 ITEM #4 LASERJET SERIES 2P (75A)---------------------------$54 ITEM #5 LASERJET SERIES 5P,6P,5MP, 6MP (3903A)---------- -$44 ITEM #6 LASERJET SERIES 5SI, 8000 (09A)--------------------$95 ITEM #7 LASERJET SERIES 2100 (96A)-------------------------$74 ITEM #8 LASERJET SERIES 8100 (82X)------------------------$145 ITEM #9 LASERJET SERIES 5L/6L (3906A)----------------------$35 ITEM #10 LASERJET SERIES 4V---------------------------------$95 ITEM #11 LASERJET SERIES 4000 (27X)--------------------------$72 ITEM #12 LASERJET SERIES 3SI/4SI (91A)-----------------------$54 ITEM #13 LASERJET SERIES 4, 4M, 5,5M-------------------------$49 ITEM #13A LASERJET SERIES 5000 (29X)-------------------------$125 HEWLETT PACKARD FAX (ON PAGE 2) ITEM #14 LASERFAX 500, 700 (FX1)----------$49 ITEM #15 LASERFAX 5000,7000 (FX2)--------$54 ITEM #16 LASERFAX (FX3)------------------$59 ITEM #17 LASERFAX (FX4)------------------$54 LEXMARK/IBM (ON PAGE 3) OPTRA 4019, 4029 HIGH YIELD---------------$89 OPTRA R, 4039, 4049 HIGH YIELD-----------$105 OPTRA E-----------------------------------$59 OPTRA N----------------------------------$115 OPTRA S----------------------------------$165 EPSON (ON PAGE 4) ACTION LASER 7000,7500,8000,9000----------$105 ACTION LASER 1000,1500--------------------$105 CANON PRINTERS (ON PAGE 5) PLEASE CALL FOR MODELS AND UPDATED PRICES FOR CANON PRINTER CARTRIDGES PANASONIC (0N PAGE 7) NEC SERIES 2 MODELS 90 AND 95----------$105 APPLE (0N PAGE 8) LASER WRITER PRO 600 or 16/600------------------$49 LASER WRITER SELECT 300,320,360-----------------$74 LASER WRITER 300 AND 320------------------------$54 LASER WRITER NT, 2NT----------------------------$54 LASER WRITER 12/640-----------------------------$79 CANON FAX (ON PAGE 9) LASERCLASS 4000 (FX3)---------------------------$59 LASERCLASS 5000,6000,7000 (FX2)-----------------$54 LASERFAX 5000,7000 (FX2)------------------------$54 LASERFAX 8500,9000 (FX4)------------------------$54 CANON COPIERS (PAGE 10) PC 3, 6RE, 7 AND 11 (A30)---------------------$69 PC 300,320,700,720 and 760 (E-40)-------------$89 IF YOUR CARTRIDGE IS NOT LISTED CALL CUSTOMER SERVICE AT 1-888-248-2015 90 DAY UNLIMITED WARRANTY INCLUDED ON ALL PRODUCTS. ALL TRADEMARKS AND BRAND NAMES LISTED ABOVE ARE PROPERTY OF THE RESPECTIVE HOLDERS AND USED FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES ONLY. From amaha at vsnl.net Wed Aug 1 10:28:40 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:28:40 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108011728.f71HSdZ26380@ak47.algebra.com> You are what your deep, driving desire is. As your desire is, so is your will. As your will is, so is your deed. As your deed is, so is your destiny. --Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV 4.5 *********************************************************************************** Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period of 60 days+. We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will make your life peaceful,successful & happy in a way you had never imagined before. If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy From shout at biggilo.com.toad.com Wed Aug 1 12:32:50 2001 From: shout at biggilo.com.toad.com (shout at biggilo.com.toad.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:32:50 Subject: Painless Message-ID: <200108011740.BAA18534@info> Hello czckq, Please read this exciting information that will help you relieve pain from injury or infirmity. ARE YOU OR A LOVED ONE COPING WITH CHRONIC PAIN? ARE YOU TIRED OF NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS AND HIGH PRICES OF PRESCRIPTION PAINKILLERS? If so, our natural topical cream gives exceptional results in 95 out of 100 people. Our balm relieves pain from osteo, degenerative, rheumatoid arthritis, low backache, injury, and many other pain related disorders with a complete money back guarantee if used as directed for 14 days. Not only does our product attack pain, but also it is like a "first aid kit in a jar" giving relief from poison ivy, bee stings, insect bites and numerous injuries. 70 to 100% of pain reduction typically takes place in the first 5 to 15 minutes and is maintained anywhere from 4 to 17 hours. Many people who were in chronic pain for years use our product and over 90% of them said their pain was relieved within 5 to 15 minutes. What are you waiting for? With our full refund guarantee, the only thing you have to lose is pain. It's worked for me and I'm completely, 100% confident it will work for you. Don't delay for even a second; the first fifty purchasers will receive 5 free samples to be shared with loved ones or friends. To obtain more information on this Natural pain relieving product cut & paste the email address below and send an email with the subject line: "Send Pain Relief Information" Pain relief mail to: paintkilz at excite.com P.S. Don't forget, when you have used this "Pain Relief Balm" and see the incredible results it produces, please forward this email to a friend. PPS. Remember our natural pain relief product has a 100% money back guarantee so the "Only Thing You Have To Lose Is The Pain" So Act Now! If you wish to be removed from any future mailings please send a letter to: quit_sending at excite.com From mmotyka at lsil.com Wed Aug 1 12:39:18 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:39:18 -0700 Subject: MBNA Message-ID: <3B685AE6.5D4A1E2D@lsil.com> Seems like a regular herd of senior FBI guys wind up at MBNA when they're ready to amass some capitol for retirement. What are the origins of the company? http://www.cptryon.org/compassion/spr99/fbi.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RuMills/message/367 http://www.lineofduty.com/blotter/mar00/mar00/mar11-21/32000-33.htm http://fyi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/09/kallstrom/ From alan at clueserver.org Wed Aug 1 12:40:57 2001 From: alan at clueserver.org (Alan Olsen) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Criminalizing crypto criticism In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20010801120340.02302e60@STPNTMX03.sctc.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Rick Smith at Secure Computing wrote: > I had suggested that a large number of crypto researchers take the > proactive (or rather, prophylactic) step of informing *all* vendors of copy > protection that the researchers are interested in studying the encryption > used in their products. The notion of this would be that such an act by a > large group would reduce the risk of retribution against individuals who > participated. Trying to get a large group of any profession to do one thing is next to impossible. I can see what this is going to do to third party due dilligance. Say you have a company that wants to use product X. But the lawyers set in and say "prove it is reasonably secure" as a CYA measure. There are many cases where you do not want to give the company advanced warning that you are doing this, otherwise they may try and skew the results. (Making "special" versions that don't work the same as the normal one. Taking out especially dangerous features.) BTW, this is *not* a hypothetical example. I worked on a project under contract to break a security method used by an e-commerce system. When the company found out what we discovered, they were very pissed off. If we had not had one of the bigger computer companies backing us up on the project, they would have probably sent lawyers after us. (At some point, the information will get out. The details of snake-oilness are pretty funny, in a sad sick way.) The security industry is going to be seriously burned by this. If I were to get a group of people together, it would be the security profesionals. I would have them boycott the US Govenment and any of the supporters of the DMCA. Just refuse to do work for them and explain why. (Something like "If I do my job, you might decide to put me in jail on a whim".) > At 05:43 PM 7/31/2001, Alan Olsen wrote: > > >All they have to do is make a messy example out of one or two. (It also > >helps if you can get a prosecutor that is working on a promotion to help out.) > > I Am Not A Lawyer, so someone more knowledgeable may correct me if I'm > wrong, but... > > There's nothing here for a prosecutor to do. There's nothing illegal about > a bona fide crypto researcher informing a vendor of an intent to study > their product, which is offered to sale to the public. In fact, the > researcher is complying with the legal requirements. > > I don't see any way the vendor could file an injunction or take other legal > action simply because someone (especially one of a large number of people) > announced an intent to study their product, again, as a bona fide crypto > researcher, as stated in the law. > > Rick. > > 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. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman From rick_smith at securecomputing.com Wed Aug 1 10:48:50 2001 From: rick_smith at securecomputing.com (Rick Smith at Secure Computing) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:48:50 -0500 Subject: Criminalizing crypto criticism In-Reply-To: References: <20010731165950.B386736D4A@mononoke.wasabisystems.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20010801120340.02302e60@STPNTMX03.sctc.com> I had suggested that a large number of crypto researchers take the proactive (or rather, prophylactic) step of informing *all* vendors of copy protection that the researchers are interested in studying the encryption used in their products. The notion of this would be that such an act by a large group would reduce the risk of retribution against individuals who participated. At 05:43 PM 7/31/2001, Alan Olsen wrote: >All they have to do is make a messy example out of one or two. (It also >helps if you can get a prosecutor that is working on a promotion to help out.) I Am Not A Lawyer, so someone more knowledgeable may correct me if I'm wrong, but... There's nothing here for a prosecutor to do. There's nothing illegal about a bona fide crypto researcher informing a vendor of an intent to study their product, which is offered to sale to the public. In fact, the researcher is complying with the legal requirements. I don't see any way the vendor could file an injunction or take other legal action simply because someone (especially one of a large number of people) announced an intent to study their product, again, as a bona fide crypto researcher, as stated in the law. Rick. From alan at clueserver.org Wed Aug 1 12:49:50 2001 From: alan at clueserver.org (Alan Olsen) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > 1) "Cypherpunks write code." This metaphorical admonition tells us to make > the laws irrelevant by outrunning them with technology. I couldn't agree > more. I don't see much benefit in asking the nice lawmakers to do fuck us > so badly, please. Better to take steps that put us outside of their reach. "The first rule of not being seen is ''Don't stand up''." 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. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman From blancw at cnw.com Wed Aug 1 12:53:05 2001 From: blancw at cnw.com (Blanc) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:53:05 -0700 Subject: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. Message-ID: James A. Donald wrote: The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point you must explain to the authorities: "My actions were legal for this reason and that reason", explaining in inconveniently great detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and highly informative explanation will almost certainly be to hit a few times, and then lock you up. With cryptography they have a mysterious block of unexplained and useless bits. ---------------------------------- And doesn't providing all these explanations of their behavior, or else excuses for them, put a person in the position of being the equivalent of a puppet on a string? They yank, you respond (or else). It's not much at all like the ideal of being one's own person, with liberty and authority to direct one's own actions, to be reduced to answering for your decisions (crypto or otherwise) - under the guidance of a stranger who is only concerned about following the proper procedure for responding to the pull - to some other stranger put into position of power over you, who may be irate, bored, humorless, eager to be elsewhere, etc. The arguments in these threads deal with cryptography and bits of data and how they are treated by 'the owner' or 'the consumer' or 'the researcher'. And they are discussed within the context of laws which are designed to circumscribe the actions of citizens in regard to each other. But in fact there is a larger context which precedes these contexts, which form the foundation of expectations about being a real person and living a rational life, and which should not be set aside as insignificant. This is what makes me - and some other of us - uncomfortable about the laws, lawyers, and legal systems. It is ideal - as an individual or in a controversy with others - to be able to come to terms about what is Truth and Justice, and Right and Wrong, using intelligent arguments to distinguish between them and make decisions in regard of them. But if that is not possible, then either a person succumbs to what others impose upon them, or they must find methods of self-defense against being reduced to the status of a "criminal" and being treated as such (worthless). Currently it appears that anything which is not first reviewed and approved by official overseers falls under the category of 'crime'. The 'crime' appears to be that of not making oneself satisfactorily, publically, submissive and subordinate to legal oversight and direction. And this tells me that in fact, those who study and apply the law do not really know the difference between good and bad (what is proper or improper) for 'mankind' - when the only solution they can come up with to the problems of living and working together is to reduce everyone ad absurdum to a malleable level, when they should actualy be assistants to to prevention from being reduced to low standards of functioning. [But I guess this is best dicussed on L-Cyberia. Do they keep archives?] .. Blanc From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 1 12:58:19 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:58:19 -0700 Subject: Criminalizing crypto criticism In-Reply-To: <3B685528.73C3334@lsil.com> References: <3B685528.73C3334@lsil.com> Message-ID: At 12:14 PM -0700 8/1/01, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >I keep seeing words like "bona fide" and "legitimate" used as modifiers >for "cryptographic researcher." The DMCA states : > >(3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is >employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of >encryption technology; and > >Isn't self-taught a legitimate course of study? Abraham Lincoln was >largely self-taught. If a teenager, who has clearly not had the >opportunity to amass much in the way of official credentials, can break >CSS hasn't he "engaged in a legitimate course of study" and isn't he >"appropriately experienced in the field of encryption technology?" It's part of the credentialling of rights. See my earlier post on Official Reporters, Official Thisandthat. It gives one more piece of ammo for someone going after J. Random Cryptographer. Shifts the burden a bit more to J. Random to "prove" that he should be due the rights given to Approved Cryptographers. (Like many rent-seekers, expect professional organizations to use membership in their organization as one of the litmus tests. IACR may see a surge in membership.) >The modifiers are meaningless as is 3B. > >Why do we even discuss the damn thing. It's just another rathole to dive >into. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. Short of nuclear blackmail >Congress will not change it and the courts will not overturn it. I'll >let the lawyers and those with deep pockets fight that battle. About the >only good I might be able to do is to contribute to enhancing the means >for people to exchange and distribute proscribed information with >impunity. As we've known for many years, the gubment can throw more legal cases out there than "the community" can raise money for. Several years ago it was the crypto export brouhaha (which still hasn't gotten noticeably easier, say my corporate contacts). And the Online Decency nonsense. The government pays their people to put cases out there, causing the lobbying orgs to beg for donations. The latest is the DMCA. I was talking to an online advocacy guy recently and he was telling me they figure they need $2 million to defend/handle the Dimitry case. This even with Adobe dropping out out of cowardice at what they've wrought. I shrugged and said "Good luck." Maybe he thought I'd contribute.... All I can think of when I hear about these cases is how _far_ $2 million would go toward making available a lot of robust Mixmaster (hopefully beyond Type II) remailers, the deployment of SWAN and other "crypto by default" pipes, and similar "trust in the laws of mathematics and not the laws of men" approaches. A $2 million project to deploy a system of digital cash-paid remailers would be exciting. $2 million to defend a Russian is not. Even if Dimitry is released, the Copyright Establishment is _not_ going to back off. (Besides Adobe, there are even more draconian moves from the satellite t.v. people. Will online advocacy groups spend even more millions defending the dish hackers? And so on, in a neverending cascade of major pitched battles.) (And, yes, I invest my money in some of these technological approaches. I guess I'd better stop hinting at what these investments are, lest BU be correct that merely building in ways to bypass Big Brother is "spoliation.") --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 1 13:42:25 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:42:25 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim May wrote: > I know of many arguments that a > knife can be gotten into a fight > and used effectively _faster_ > than a gun can, especially in > very close quarters. Maybe yes, maybe no, but why not carry both then? A legal knife and a illegal (misdemeanor) gun rather than just your illegal (felony) knife? > The knife Sandy saw was not even > concealed: it was a single-edged > Cold Steel Safe-Keeper, in a belt > sheath. _Some_ prosecutors might > claim it was a "push knife," but: > > a) Push knives are not banned, > even by California's bizarre laws. Actually they were previously banned in California (at the time you were carrying it) as dirks, or daggers. Since then the legal definitions have change and a push dagger, open worn is just dandy. Which only goes to support my point that one should know which laws one is obeying (or not). Obviously, you have wised up on this issue because you are now quoting chapter and verse: > (A useful reference is > http://home.earthlink.net/~jkmtsm/calaw.html, > which also has links to the relevant > California codes.) > > b) California changed its laws > about concealment of knives to > allow _far_ more deadly knives > to be freely carried, even > concealed... > c) Even with the old laws, when > was the last time there was a > knife prosecution, as opposed to > busting someone for unlicensed > carry of a handgun? The latter > outnumber the former by probably > 1000-to-1... Whoa, I'd like to see a citation on that one. What really usually happens in California is that the cops "confiscate" the gun and cut the detainee loose. Why? Hey, a free gun is a free gun. And they are particularly useful to loan to guys you shoot who forgot to bring their own. :'D > ...even though carry of knives > in various "concealed" ways... > probably outnumbers concealed > carry of handguns by a factor > of 100-to-1. Do the math. I did. It only takes one. > d) The encounter Sandy describes > took place in a conference room > inside Cygnus Support offices in > an office complex. Last I checked, > this was not public property, not > even by today's liberal standards. You didn't teleport there Tim; quit quibbling. > e) Most cops would rather have > people carrying concealed knives, > a la folders, than wearing knives > on their belts. If you want to please the cops, then carry a concealed folder. Perfectly legal under most circumstances. Remember, that's what I was arguing about--knowing the laws you are obeying (or not). > Now, would I carry a knife into > one of the Del Torto Cypherpunks > meetings held (foolishly) inside > a San Francisco police training > facility? No. Good. I'm glad to see you are now thinking about the legal issues that you previously eschewed. > But carrying a perfectly legal knife in a perfectly legal way (open > carry, unconcealed) on private property, displaying no "intent" to > use it illegally (*)...what does Sandy have to complain about? Assuming facts not in evidence. I am not, nor did I complain about your carrying of an illegal (then) knife. I tried to tell you that it could get you into trouble--unnecessarily--when there were better options available. Your full response was, "I don't care what the law says, I'll do what I want." Since you have apparently decided to care what the law says, I have no current beef. What annoyed me way back when was your militant ignorance. If you are ready to put that aside and listen to what Unicorn and others tell you about your potential legal exposure, more power to you. > For Sandy to attempt to bring me > to the attention of the cops > remains despicable. Tim, are you on crack or what? Where do you come off suggesting that I have brought you to the attention of the cops? Check the archives of what you have written and then tell me with a straight face that, but for my reference to an incident years past, the cops would not have any attention directed towards you. S a n d y From rsw at MIT.EDU Wed Aug 1 10:44:28 2001 From: rsw at MIT.EDU (Riad S. Wahby) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:44:28 -0400 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: ; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 09:31:05AM -0700 References: <20010731232456.A26735@neutraldomain.org> <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20010801134428.A6127@positron.mit.edu> Tim May wrote: > protect against ROT-13 and Pig Latin being DMCA-protected. Utterly Isn't ROT-13 what Adobe used in the eBook? Isn't that what Dmitry Skylarov was arrested for circumventing? I'd say it doesn't matter how strong the cryptography is. What matters is whose pocketbook is larger. -- Riad Wahby rsw at mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105 From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 1 14:10:56 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:10:56 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Eugene Leitl wrote: > Feds enter houses for whatever > reasons they deem appropriate > to invent... Then my comments won't affect their actions one way or the other. > Pointing out possible targets > makes no damn reason at all... Tim already is a target. My minor comments do nothing to change his status. > ...unless you've got a personal > vendetta, or a crappy personality. Are those the only possible explanations you can come up with? I find most of Tim's insights useful and think he is a valuable member of the list. Pointing out that he has his head up his ass on certain subjects is hardly equivalent to having a "personal vendetta." As to "crappy personality" well, that's why there are horse races; differences of opinion. > Are you really thus clueless, > or are you just a natural? Huh? Maybe I'd know what you were talking about if you'd actually answered my question. > We seem to have very different > understandings of "friendly". > Friendly is if they do have a > search warrant... No warrant is friendly. I've had the FBI stop by my house for a friendly visit (no warrant). Just for the fun of it (and to see what they were after), I let them sit down in my living room. After I asked them a few questions and gotten some answers, they started asking ME some questions. That's when I kicked their sorry asses out. > Yah, whatever. You suck, have > halitosis, and are generically > an idiot. Do you feel better now? MUCH better, but why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel? :'D > What's "statute of limitations" spelt in > German? Begren'zungstatzung? S a n d y From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Aug 1 05:11:42 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:11:42 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Announcement: cpunx-news @ yahoogroups.com created Message-ID: I've just created a dedicated email newsticker for cypherpunk related bit of news at (evil) Yahoogroups. It's not for discussion, it's for dumping pointers to bits of news (or, better, the bits of news verbatim). So, if you come across a bit of relevant news, post it there, not to cpunx. Here's the url: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cpunx-news Post message: cpunx-news at yahoogroups.com Subscribe: cpunx-news-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: cpunx-news-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com List owner: cpunx-news-owner at yahoogroups.com This message brought to you by the letters S and N. From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Wed Aug 1 11:33:40 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:33:40 -0400 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights Message-ID: > Riad S. Wahby[SMTP:rsw at mit.edu] wrote: > > > Tim May wrote: > > protect against ROT-13 and Pig Latin being DMCA-protected. Utterly > > Isn't ROT-13 what Adobe used in the eBook? Isn't that what Dmitry > Skylarov was arrested for circumventing? > > I'd say it doesn't matter how strong the cryptography is. What > matters is whose pocketbook is larger. > > Riad Wahby > rsw at mit.edu > No, Adobe did not use ROT13. They were quite a bit better than that (though still breakable, obviously). One other company mentioned in Sklyarov's paper did, but the content of their site suggests they are an investment advice firm, using it to protect their own reports which they sold to customers (this is not clear from the paper - I think Dmitri was grandstanding a bit here.) The only victim of their incompetence is themselves. Last time I checked, the paper was on http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/ebooks/ Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Wed Aug 1 11:33:40 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:33:40 -0400 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights Message-ID: > Riad S. Wahby[SMTP:rsw at mit.edu] wrote: > > > Tim May wrote: > > protect against ROT-13 and Pig Latin being DMCA-protected. Utterly > > Isn't ROT-13 what Adobe used in the eBook? Isn't that what Dmitry > Skylarov was arrested for circumventing? > > I'd say it doesn't matter how strong the cryptography is. What > matters is whose pocketbook is larger. > > Riad Wahby > rsw at mit.edu > No, Adobe did not use ROT13. They were quite a bit better than that (though still breakable, obviously). One other company mentioned in Sklyarov's paper did, but the content of their site suggests they are an investment advice firm, using it to protect their own reports which they sold to customers (this is not clear from the paper - I think Dmitri was grandstanding a bit here.) The only victim of their incompetence is themselves. Last time I checked, the paper was on http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/ebooks/ Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Wed Aug 1 11:52:39 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:52:39 -0400 Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation Message-ID: > Alan Olsen[SMTP:alan at clueserver.org] wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and > > Competition Subcommittee hearing on "S.1233, the Product Package > Protection > > Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes." Location: 226 > > Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 > > http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary > > Looking for the "Crack" in "snap, crackle, and pop"? > > I would be interested in attending this just to try and figure out what > the HELL they are worried about. > > I don't think Safeway is going to start carrying "PornoPops" any time > soon. > According to the Senate, you'd think wrong. I can't give the cite, but I saw this a couple days ago. Apparently, some yahoo was slipping racist pamplets into cereal boxes on a store shelf. Politicians have too much trouble justifying their existence to let a chance like this slip through. Peter Trei > Alan Olsen From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Wed Aug 1 11:52:39 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:52:39 -0400 Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation Message-ID: > Alan Olsen[SMTP:alan at clueserver.org] wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and > > Competition Subcommittee hearing on "S.1233, the Product Package > Protection > > Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes." Location: 226 > > Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 > > http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary > > Looking for the "Crack" in "snap, crackle, and pop"? > > I would be interested in attending this just to try and figure out what > the HELL they are worried about. > > I don't think Safeway is going to start carrying "PornoPops" any time > soon. > According to the Senate, you'd think wrong. I can't give the cite, but I saw this a couple days ago. Apparently, some yahoo was slipping racist pamplets into cereal boxes on a store shelf. Politicians have too much trouble justifying their existence to let a chance like this slip through. Peter Trei > Alan Olsen From jya at pipeline.com Wed Aug 1 14:54:44 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 14:54:44 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200108011854.OAA03556@mclean.mail.mindspring.net> The time for confidences is over. Lawyers are considering a change in their ethics about ratting on clients (see NY Times today); priests are ratting about criminal confessions; reporters are ratting on interviewees, psychiatrists are ratting patients. DoJ and the courts are squeezing all the privileged listeners along with ISPs and remailers and sysadmins and CDRs and trusted circles and cryptographers -- so what makes anyone think mathematics of concealment is any more protection than a concealed weapon when crypto has long been known as a highly dangerous munition. What is interesting is the fast shuffling going on among once trusted confidants of all formulae, of all most trusted schemes of protection -- authorities of all models are suspect, personal as well as institutional. The wargames of the snake oilers, read it here, grind your grist, spot the narc, the provocateur, of the day, avoid mirrors or you'll shit your britches with recognition of self-deception. Spit. Dry spit, unable to drivel, when your closest admirers decide to rock you a Shirley Jackson to gain another year of not being backdoored. From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 1 15:24:18 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:24:18 -0700 Subject: WHERE IS DILDO? was: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dildo blathered: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Alan Olsen wrote: > ... > > "The first rule of not being seen > > is ''Don't stand up''." > > That should be 'Don't stand out'. > If everyone else is standing up > you're toast. Jimbo is obviously still having trouble understanding and using metaphors. S a n d y From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 1 13:38:33 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:38:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Findlaw: The New York Times and Napster In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010730123809.041fbec8@pop3.lvcm.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Steve Schear wrote: > At 01:29 PM 7/30/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > >http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20010730_chander.html > > It will be very interesting if Napster decides to take Mr. Chander's > suggestion and ask the court to force copyright holder's back to the table > and compel them to negotiate or face an arbitrated result based on New York > Times v. Tasini I certainly hope some party acts on this. This would force Napster to recognize the rights of the copyright holder and at the same time prevent the copyright holder from being too 'exclusive' in their license grants. On a distantly related note, DirecPC has announced they're going after 'pirates' of their services. Not just the middle men (provided hardware or software) as has been the case in the past. In this example there is no middle man 'server' between the producer and consumer once the hack is setup. Therefore there isn't a single contact point between the provider and the pirates. This would seem to effectively bar such an approach for sat-tv. Would digital TVR be the 'middle man' in that case? >From a systems perspective this is a case of adding a link (edge or arc) of feedback from the distributor to the producer node (directed to undirected graph). Something that was missing previously (there is already 2-way link between consumer and distributor nodes). -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 1 16:07:34 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:07:34 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civility. Was: Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. References: <3B66809A.6842.48A7CE7@localhost> <003c01c119f6$1d0439f0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> <002501c11a49$7e78b820$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <001001c11ade$c1118fa0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:19 PM Subject: Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. > At 10:19 PM -0700 7/31/01, Black Unicorn wrote: > > >> Show me exactly which law I am breaking by placing some of my > >> documents or files in a place even I cannot "turn over all copies > >> from." > >> > >> I have never heard of such a law. > > > >If you know you've committed some kind of weapons violations or some such and > >you have reason to believe you have come to the attention of the authorities, > >burning the record of those bulk AK-74 purchases might be a bad idea- if you > >got caught. > > Show me the cites. I commit felonies on a weekly, even daily, basis. I can't speak to your felonious activities, but on the other points, very well. For spoliation as an independent cause of action in tort (not to mention the criminal sanctions that can attach through obstruction) See: Bondu v. Gurvich, 473 So.2d 1307 (1985). Medical malpractice case in which court rules that the loss (not destruction) of medical records related to the claim constituted spoliation of evidence. (Note: no willful destruction was shown, mere negligence and the records were "lost" by actions prior to the commencement of the proceedings). See also: Hirsch v. General Motors, 628 A.2d 1108 (1993). Products liability case- vehicle caught fire, was refurbished, sold, then "lost" to an unknown purchaser. Only then did Plaintiffs file a suit against General Motors and the dealer who sold them the car. Court held the "loss" of the car constituted spoliation of evidence. (Note that no proceeding for products liability had been pending when the car was resold). See also generally: Brian E. Howard, Spoliation of Evidence, 49 J.Mo.B. 121 (1993). On the dangerous and insidious nature of Spoliation in civil cases Generally: Mary A. Wells, Penalties for Spoliation of Evidence Can be Serious, Including Exclusion of Evidence, Adverse Inferences and Liability for an Independent Tort, 60 Def.Couns.J. 280 (1993). > >I've seen more of this in the white collar world, where billing records, > >transaction records and such were destroyed but the principal holds. > > IBM instructed employees to destroy records. At Intel, we destroyed > records--I did so as part of the "Crush" program (to drive several > competitors out of business). So long as we were not being ordered to > turn over evidence, not any kind of crime. So long as it was regular practice and documented as policy it meant you had a _defense_ against an action or spoliation issue. It hardly meant that you weren't potentially going to be found in contempt of court, subject to a civil suit for spoliation or worse. As I'm sure you are aware your argument is flawed because of a sampling error. i.e.: "I walked across the street today and was not struck by an automobile. Therefore I can always expect no automobile will strike me when walking across the street." This is clearly not so. IBM and Intel are also better resourced than our typical remailer operator. (Unless you know something I don't?) I think it's pretty easy to argue that IBM and Intel were engaged in some naughtiness, that's not the issue. The issue is who is going to go after them and who wants to spend the money against an IBM or Intel defense team. (In fact you will probably know that in the Intel anti-trust days there was a bit of naughtiness done and there is a statute out there generated at least partly from Intel's conduct- specifically a change was made to 18 USC 1505: "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees: Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so... [blah blah blah...] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." If you flesh out the case law on "intent," which I'll do some below, you'll find that there is no requirement that the investigative proceeding or demand have been made yet. Intel and IBM aside, a remailer operator is hardly going to be doing him or herself a favor looking to large multi-nationals to define the rules of conduct since all of us here know (or should have known) that the rules don't always (ever?) apply to large multi-nationals.Back to the matter at hand.In reference to your example c.f. the experience in Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc., 40 Cal.App.4th 892 (1995). Defendant destroys all internal records on the design for a tractor that eventually results in an injury and a lawsuit (products liability), some ten (10) years later. Defendant destroyed these records _on advice of counsel_ 10 years before the proceedings and years before the accident. The trial court found spoliation in a hot minute, imposed sanctions and referred to the prosecutor the suggestion that criminal obstruction charges be filed. If this were a remailer operator we'd be struggling to scrape together $2,000.00 for EFF to defend the guy and he'd still be in the can, I suspect. In a lovely piece of language on intent with reference to the destruction of the documents the court also notes: "...intent is broader than a desire or purpose to bring about physical results. It extends not only to those consequences which are desired, but also to those which the actor believes are substantially certain to follow from what the actor does." (More on this later). An expensive appeal overturned a portion of the sanctions, but _only_ it seems, because the judges were convinced that the action of destruction was on advice of counsel and this outweighed the spoliation effect itself, which was low since the probative value of the records destroyed were regarded by the court to be minimal. > A bookstore is not "spoliation" for failing to keep records of who > bought which books.Now we just haven't created any records- or any evidence. I'd counter that the bookstore would be running afoul of standard accounting practices, or that most of the records of credit card transactions would be otherwise available so it's not a very good hypo, but let's go with it. > Cop: "We have a court order requiring you to turn over all records > concerning who bought the book "Applied Cryptography."" > Store: "We don't keep records." > Cop: "Why not?" > Store: "None of your business." > (Interjection by Black Unicorn: "The court is not amused.") > Cop: "We could charge you with spoliation!" > Store: "Go right ahead." > (Interjection by Black Unicorn: "It's not nice to fool with Mr. Happy > Fun Court.") I note that you have omitted my "knew or should have known" that those records were likely to be part of a proceeding, I assume not just because it serves your argument in this instance. (I also note that the quote is "do not taunt happy-fun-court." A reference to the SNL quote "Do not taunt happy-fun-ball" and a statement of the dangers of taunting powers you may not understand). Still, the facts in Willard might still support your hypo as plausible, though I find it hard to envision it being pressed, and I think if you look at the facts of Hirsch v. General Motors you'll also find that the court isn't that kind to an otherwise innocent third party who does anything with records or "evidence" that eventually is sought after by the court, reasonability aside, knowledge aside, pending litigation aside. Disturbingly, innocent third parties have increasingly been taking it on the chin in American jurisprudence, but that's another essay. > >Still, based on what you seem to have read me as saying we probably lost a > >good deal of the context of the discussion. The original question, as I > >understood it, was what an individual who was faced with a clearly pending > >court action (or an existing court order) could to do frustrate that order and > >prevent certain materials from being distributed- _without consequences_. > >My discussion was limited to that context, though I did not probably clarify > >that sufficiently. > > The discussion included claims that those who use remailers, or who > run remailers, may be guilty of spoliation. And it included comments > that using offshore/unreachable methods if one ever expects to be > charged is spoliation. And I stand by those. Such people have no (or just a little depending on the age of the judge in the case) defense in "normal course of business" or "custom" or "policy" that their actions were for any purpose other than to dispose of potentially material evidence to a crime. Face facts. Remailers are to destroy or prevent the creation of records. It's pretty reasonable to assume that the operator knows about this effect and anticipates the result. (More on that in a sec). Let's pretend for sake of argument that we could make a normal course of business argument (which IBM and Intel certainly would make, citing document destruction policies broadly written but loosely applied, to demonstrate their intent as being kosher). Even this isn't always enough, but it tends to help, particularly if your a big company keeping lots of records. (See e.g., Willard, Hirsch). Also, note the intent interpretation, applied to spoliation, is articulated better in Lopez v. Surchia 112 Cal.App.2d 314. A person who acts willfully intends "those consequences which (a) represent the very purpose for which an act is done (regardless of the likelihood of occurrence), or (b) are known to be substantially certain to result (regardless of desire)." On this point See Also Generally: Perkins on Criminal Law (2d ed.). Taking it to the remailer example, sure, your (a) very purpose for which [logs are routinely erased] is accomplished. to wit: the saving of space time etc. but it is also (b) known to be substantially certain to result in [the denial of a court of law's access to the records pertaining to an issue before it]. Let's face it, remailers are not politically correct animals (all the human rights and recovery group arguments notwithstanding). A court might well assign intent to a remailer operator on the basis of this piece of case law, which is _strongly_ engrained in California jurisprudence incidentally and used as a major cite in several intent issue arguments. > I say this is bullshit. In response I can only direct you to read above. > By your vague (no plausible cites, just some > 1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape > recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is > spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. This is the point. The practical definition of destruction of evidence is what the court says it is. All you can do, all you can ever do, in court is to make arguments the other way. Either the court will buy them, or they won't. I tend to think your bookstore example would be unlikely to bring about a case. However, if I walked into the bookstore, told the manager I was going to sue him because he was overcharging 2% for every book, and then left, _technically_ the destruction of billing records after that point makes a pretty good case for spoliation. Something I didn't even give thought to, that I discovered thanks to Mr. May's insistence that I provide cites, is that it's even worse than that. You don't even have to intentionally toss the records to be spoiling evidence. You can do it by mere negligence or inaction. See e.g., Continental Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 190 Cal.App.3d (1987). > >I can cite some case law if you really want or if there is some legitimate > >need for more clarification, but we are a bit far afield of the original > >discussion now, and that was not intended to allege anything close to the kind > >of prohibition you seem to be talking about. > > >But you said, more than once, > > "If it looks like you knew it was going to be a > court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in trouble." See above. > And why would it be a crime for John Gotti to make his communications > inaccessible or irretrievable or unrecallable? That's preventing the creation of evidence in the first place. That is not the same problem. Extending to remailers, disabling the logging function entirely (rather than just routing to /dev/null or deleting regularly) is the best policy probably. Even better is to be a middle remailer. I fall back to my earlier position. Put yourself in the spot to be able to say "I couldn't give you those if I wanted to cause I don't control them." Adding to my earlier position you should rather be able to say "No such logs ever existed because that function doesn't exist in the software I use." or "No such logs exist because mail that comes to my system doesn't have meaningful headers on it anyhow." Or even better, just give them a full set of 20gigs of logs of encrypted mixmaster stuff with headers from nothing but 4 other front end remailers, maybe compressed in an obscure format on old Western Digital Corp tape reels or something. > How aboutL "If it looks like you knew it was going to be a > court issue and you whispered so that the FBI could not understand > your words , you're in trouble."? Let's not be silly. That falls under the realm of not creating evidence in the first place, not destroying evidence that already exists. If you don't recognize the difference this discussion is a bigger waste of time than it already appears to be. If you routinely tape your calls for whatever purpose you're creating evidence. If you take notes, there's evidence. If there's a witness, there's evidence. There is no evidence if two parties are whispering in a loud Italian restaurant, unless the FBI has rather more sophisticated listening devices than I am led to believe. Well, technically there is evidence in the second party as a witness. If you tamper with him or her, you're in trouble too, as Gotti will, I suspect, readily attest to. > Isn't this spoliation by your broad standards? They aren't my standards and no, it's not, for the reasons I cite above. Mr. May Asks: >>> Cites? >> >>I don't have any. This was my theory. Hence my language: "It almost sounds >>tantamount..." Hence my cite of the definition of spoliation below, for >>comparison. Hence my discussion of a prosecutor's likely tactic in making the >>argument. Encrypting to an "irrecoverable" key certainly comes close to if >>not outright meets the technical definition of spoliation in Black's Law >>Dictionary. What "irrecoverable" means will depend on the judge probably. > > But, Black Unicorn, you're the one who chose to lecture all the children here. The children can do a little homework if they are personally interested in more detail. As it is I did a bit of research for the list and you Mr. May, since FindLaw didn't seem to do it for you. (Not surprising since I don't regard it as a tool of much use). Whatever you, or anyone else, might think I don't pull this stuff out of thin air just to hear myself type.I'm interested in seeing remailers stick around and grow in numbers. That's not going to happen if remailer operators get pinched and bullied on a regular basis. We've been pretty lucky so far. I don't expect that to last forever. There are so many teeth getting built into "thought crimes" now with respect to intellectual property that I believe that this evidence issue is going to become a huge one, akin to what export was (is) in the mid 90s. You have DirectTV on the cover of yesterday's Wall Street Journal saying they are going to pursue end users citing over a billion dollars in "loss" due to pirates (and needing to dust off their financials for an upcoming acquisition transaction). You have distributors whining about the potential illicit digital redistribution of Planet of the Apes. You have researchers being pounded for publishing DMCA violating research. You have 20 something kids smart enough to be giving lectures at DEFCON in federal custody, despite the fact that the FBI buys their stuff, because a corporation got an IP bug stuck in its rectum.I'm happy to suggest prudent, conservative approaches for remailer operators, data haven types and suchlike- based on my experience with courts, white collar crime, production orders, discovery, and etc., because I think it's needed but even so I don't particularly I want to go romping through case law every week just to win a battle of egos on a mailing list. It's only the vigor and venom of your reply that's spurring me on in this instance actually since you made a few credibility comments that I think might have been a bit uncivil and unfair. (Lesson for other posters- to get legal research for free out of Uni, just insult him a lot). > I have asked for a cite that shows that higher courts, up to the > Supreme Court, have held that using Freenet or encryption would > constitute spoliation, which you brought into the discussion as a > reason why Cypherpunks had better not count on using encryption, or > offshore storage, or any other means that might cause the court to > "not be amused." Well, that's not what you asked for. You asked for cites on spoliation generally, or so I understood you to ask. I also don't remember you specifying which courts you wanted cases from (though the ones I've cited are generally state supreme court level or otherwise major citations in the states they represent. I didn't spend time in the federal stacks today so you get state cites. A little exploration into the FRCP will yield equivalent cites for federal discovery and etc. > They didn't get John Gotti for whispering, so I doubt "spoliation" is > nearly the tool you and Aimee Farr seem to think it is. I've seen obstruction and spoliation tacked on to about every white collar criminal action I have had any exposure to- almost like mail and wire fraud. It usually ends up in court imposed sanctions. Expensive ones. More importantly the credible allegation that evidence was tampered with or destroyed by the defendant is a _very_ persuasive thing for a jury to hear. Murder cases are won on that alone without bodies. A good place to look at this is in piracy cases, where the evidence is almost always tossed overboard and eaten. Lots of discussion about evidence that the evidence was tossed and lots of convictions. I regret that I can't talk in much detail about examples I had personal involvement with, I hope the cites I provide are enough for you to look further. They should be as they are, generally, the premise for much of the evidence case law out there in this area. My personal examples probably eventually resulted in briefs which cite these cases or their contemporaries because they were the same issues. Mr. May reminds us: > >> Remember, the hypo involves placing material in irrecoverable forms > >> prior to any actual court case. > >>Well, that's not the hypo I remember but in any event the case doesn't need to > >have been called, the defendant merely needed to "know or should have known" > >that the material in question was likely to be the subject of a legal > >proceeding or material evidence to same. > > John Gotti "knew or should have known" that prosecutors would have > loved to have had his tape-recorded conversations. Was he then > obligated by "spoliation" standards to have neatly archived them or > could he re-use his answering machine tapes the way everyone else > does/ Hirsch v. General Motors suggests that the "normal course of business" (i.e. reusing answering tapes perhaps) is not an absolute defense, or even a good defense, for spoliation. (c.f. Catapiller which suggests at least that it might have some weighted persuasive value if it was your attorney who told you to burn the documents- wonder if there was a malpractice case there?). They resold a damaged and refurbished car. That's what they do. They are a dealership. They sell cars. Some of them are used. Some have been damaged. Routine. The only problem was that the previous owners then decided to sue General Motors. Court, not being amused at the lack of availability of the car, imposes sanctions and permits a civil action for spoliation against GM and the dealer. Look, I agree with you. That's stupid to me. Don't burn the messenger though. Your outrage at my assertions is better directed to your legislative representative and even above you've still giving an example above of not actually creating evidence, unless there actually were taped conversations that Gotti actually altered or such.I'm not sure remailer operators can credibly give the "not creating evidence" example yet. > (Again, he is not in Marion for spoliation.) Gotti is probably a bad example to argue your point with. He did have several counts of obstruction and tampering which stuck. I remember something off the top of my head about several sets of court sanctions against Michael Coiro, Gotti's attorney (whom I actually met once) related to evidence. He was eventually found guilty for money laundering and there was some tampering or destruction discussion there. You can write and ask Gotti if you like, if the throat cancer hasn't got him yet, I'm not looking that one up. (Mr. John Gotti #18261-053 USP Marion PO Box 1000 Marion, IL 62959). > And so on. I could give a dozen examples off-hand of cases where > records were not kept, where whispering or coded messages were used. > No prosecutions on spoliation that I know of. Cites from you? Again, if you don't actually _make_ records then there's nothing to spoil. That's a different hypo. To Mr. May's apparent chide that I consider myself a "real lawyer.": > >Depends on your definition of "real lawyer." I hold the degree. I'm licensed > >to practice somewhere or another. I've probably made 15 or more motions > >before courts in various proceedings in various jurisdictions. I don't > >practice anymore so perhaps that disqualifies me. Still, all of this is > >academic- just as this discussion is. My qualifications are irrelevant. You > >got my opinion for free. I think I can fairly say you got more than you paid > >for. Look up the statutes for yourself. > > I'm asking for some cites that your broad interpretation, which you > have even extended to saying that remailer operators may be running > afoul of the spoliation law merely for not keeping records of who > used their services, is at all in the ballpark of plausibility. Cites provided. See above. I think I show its more than in the ballpark, but rather a called third strike. > A person under indictment or called as a witness who throws a gun > into a river, or who burns diaries, may be said to be tampering with > or destroying evidence. Maybe "spoliation" is the Black's Law term. > Who cares? Because the applicability extends farther than just someone called as a witness or under indictment. Certainly in tort its _much_ more extensive. I'm tired of citing, see above. > But this is a far cry from saying that anyone "who knows or has > reason to expect" that he will someday be charged with some crime is > committing spoliation by using remailers, offshore > accounts,whispering, using secure phone lines, etc. I think we've addressed most of these above either by discounting them as out of the scope of discussion or providing cites. > Saying I should "look up the statute" is a cop-out. In fact, I did > some Findlaw searches and found nothing to support your broad claim > that using a remailer or an offshore storage site exposes one to > spoliation charges. In the real world, that is, not the 1L > simplicities of reading statutes overly literally. You didn't look very hard or maybe you did but findlaw isn't the best resource either. It's for armchair attorneys. Seriously interested researchers will spend time at the library, look up statutes and learn to Shepardize. I happened to be at the law library for an unrelated matter so I wasted 90 minutes looking this silliness up for you and the list Mr. May. I herewith submit my invoice, payable on receipt, for more civil treatment, for services rendered. > If you're going to try to scare remailer operators with the claim > that they may already be violating the spoliation laws, at least > provide some strong evidence. I actually pointed out examples of how to avoid the problems and cited a real individual example (but since I did not consult with him or her ahead of time I left the individual nameless- I see, but have not read- a reply that might be from said individual on the list now) of a successful dodge of a subpoena- or harmless emergence from the process in any event. The point is not to try and scare anyone, but impose some sense of reality that many cypherpunks just miss, having never seen the inside of a courtroom or having rendered a court "unamused." There's nothing quite like an unamused court if your standing (sitting) in front of one, and in answer to your implied query- I call them that because the judge always frowns, scowls, leans forward and says "I am not amused Counsler." Suddenly things get really quiet. > --Tim May From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 1 16:15:49 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:15:49 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. References: Message-ID: <003901c11adf$e7ea5d90$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trei, Peter" To: "Tim May" ; ; "'Black Unicorn'" Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 7:21 AM Subject: RE: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. > > > From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] > > > > I also made some speculative suggestions about what encrypting such data > > might > > look like in a test case extending the facts to be a bit more edgy just to > > see > > where the limits were. Such a test case (of which there are none to my > > knowledge) would easily present a close issue to argue if a savvy > > prosecutor > > were around. I'm not sure anyone could tell how it would come out. > > Consider > > it a cautionary note for cypherpunks designing evidence destroying > > (concealing, whatever) systems. > > > BU: > > You may be a lawyer, but I'm a cryptographic software engineer. > > Cleansing disks and memory of keys and plaintext isn't done > to prevent some hypothetical court from looking at evidence; > there are good, legally unremarkable reasons to do so, which > are regarded as good hygiene and 'best practice' in the > industry. Unfortunately, that conduct is going to be assessed by some old guy who was once a lawyer, and who I highly doubt was ever a cryptographic software engineer. (The latter actually has to think hard on a regular basis). [Lots of good stuff elided for brevity] > Destroying sensitive data is part of doing the job right, in > a professional, 'best practice' manner. Again, it's going to be an uphill battle to get a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty to believe that. You might think about a side job offering expert testimony services for this exact thing. From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 1 16:45:10 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:45:10 -0700 Subject: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. References: <192cbd3272c5f97f5ca5f955a1ed041d@dizum.com> Message-ID: <009f01c11ae4$00e46bc0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nomen Nescio" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:30 AM Subject: Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. > Black Unicorn wrote: > > A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It > > quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it > > is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about > > _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. > > Come now, surely justice, right, and wrong are lurking in there > somewhere? Frustratingly, not in my experience. Sure, the good guy (whoever you define that to be) wins occasionally, but, as one supreme court justice put it, while declining to free a clearly innocent convicted murderer because there was no material error at trial: "The Constitution doesn't guarantee a correct verdict, the Constitution guarantees due process." > Perhaps I miss your point. Is your statement intended as a > condemnation of the U.S. legal system? Which legal systems do you > believe are about justice, right, and wrong? Oh, really I'm just moaning out loud. All such systems are imperfect by definition. The defining factor in the U.S. system is ex ante money. The victor usually spends the most up front. (Though not always) The defining factor in Italy is political connections, the victor had the judge over a barrel. The defining factor in Mexico is ex post money (the loser buys his way into an appeal or "escape.") Choose your poison. From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 1 17:03:37 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:03:37 -0700 Subject: Do not taunt happy-fun-court. References: <027680d6da1d5ceefdf52e004889ccb3@mix.winterorbit.com> Message-ID: <00a901c11ae6$94c6a090$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anonymous" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 8:28 PM Subject: re: Do not taunt happy-fun-court. > Black Unicorn said: > > There are a few cypherpunks probably listening to this who've been smacked > with subpoenas for running remailers. I think you'll find that the > government is pretty persuasive to third parties like these. The only > defense (which one administrator of a remailer I won't name was clever > enough to set himself up with) is to say (my paraphrasing) "I don't have > access to those logs or any of that data. I don't keep such logs and I > never have because it's too much overhead and work." > > -- > > I suspect I'm the remop being referred to here, so I'll comment: > > That defense is valid because it is true. It isn't a contrived excuse for > not keeping logs that I conveniently pull out of the wings to protect the > anonymity of my users. Keeping logs really is too much of a resource drain > on my system. Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that it was artifice in this particular case, apologies if I implied or stated it was. > At some point I will probably begin keeping logs that expire after a > period of several hours, so that I can identify and block spammers. I'm > interested in your thoughts on this, Uni. Is the defense "I never retain > logs longer than 2 hours; they are automatically deleted out of disk space > considerations" as string as the first one? (This is how many remailers > are configured. But even if the remailers all kept logs, if users are > chaining their messages through multiple remailers, anonymity should still > be preserved.) See my (huge) posting on this, but I would suspect that this isn't great. Were I operating one, which I am admittedly not, I'd want there to be no data of evidentiary value ever hitting my memory or media. To some degree that's not possible. In the alternative, actually _disabling_ logging is the best policy, in my view. The evidence never existed in the first place then. It suddenly becomes a challenge to show some kind of conspiracy on your part since the actual spoliation claim is harder to make. Showing conspiracy for anything with respect to either probably starts hard and gets marginally less hard in this order: a) A middle remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) about original sender, content or recipient. The only evidence of value here would be: Time of message traversing the mailer (only useful if the specific message can be linked to the sender which- if mixmaster works- isn't feasible). Size of message (only useful if the specific message can be linked to the sender and only useful in so far as the message can be constituted and be said to be "at least size X" which- if mixmaster works- isn't feasible b) A back end remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) about content or original sender. Evidence here in addition to the above: Recipient address. Recipient public key (if content is encrypted before mixmaster). Time of actual delivery to recipients SMTP server. c) A front end remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) about content or recipient. Evidence here in addition to a) : Sender address. d) A "one hop" remailer. Evidence available: All of the above. Given that even d) doesn't provide much (and less than not much if you're never allowing logs to be written in the first place) you can probably make some guesses about the likelihood of being vulnerable here. > Regardless, I haven't had the time to implement such a system anyway. > > My point here is that, if you are going to be using the "off-shore > attorney" system of preserving your data, I think it would be helpful if > there was a legitimate reason for placing your information in the hands of > this other entity (other than protection from the US courts.) I really suggest that. Remember that you're going to have to convince people, not code, or automated rule sets, that you're a decent and non-criminal person if you do get called to the mat. Specious sounding arguments about "document destruction policies" and the like, while perhaps totally technically correct, aren't necessarily going to help you much- as the mountain of case crap I just typed in earlier should show. Since this has become a loud and argumentative issue perhaps it's time for one of the "what remains to be done" postings I used to do with a long section on what the next set of remailers should be incorporating. Advice that will be ignored or regarded, depending on the moods of the listeners perhaps. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 1 15:13:24 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:13:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Alan Olsen wrote: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > 1) "Cypherpunks write code." This metaphorical admonition tells us to make > > the laws irrelevant by outrunning them with technology. I couldn't agree > > more. I don't see much benefit in asking the nice lawmakers to do fuck us > > so badly, please. Better to take steps that put us outside of their reach. > > "The first rule of not being seen is ''Don't stand up''." That should be 'Don't stand out'. If everyone else is standing up you're toast. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at homeport.org Wed Aug 1 14:37:02 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:37:02 -0400 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20010801173702.A23626@weathership.homeport.org> On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 02:33:40PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: | > Isn't ROT-13 what Adobe used in the eBook? Isn't that what Dmitry | > Skylarov was arrested for circumventing? | > | > I'd say it doesn't matter how strong the cryptography is. What | > matters is whose pocketbook is larger. | | No, Adobe did not use ROT13. They were quite a bit better than that | (though still breakable, obviously). My reading of the DMCA (and IANAL) is that any system that you use is deemed effective if it works in normal circumstances to protect your content. As such, I believe that the use of rot-13 is a better engineering choice than the use of AES. rot-13 is smaller, faster, less buggy and equally effective, given that the key is stored locally with the content. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From alan at clueserver.org Wed Aug 1 17:41:06 2001 From: alan at clueserver.org (Alan Olsen) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > I can't give the cite, but I saw this a couple days ago. > Apparently, some yahoo was slipping racist pamplets > into cereal boxes on a store shelf. People used to do that at bookstores as well. It does not justify Senate hearings into how to restrict what goes into book. Oh. I forgot. It is for the Children(tm). > Politicians have too much trouble justifying their > existence to let a chance like this slip through. So far they seem to prove over and over why they should *not* exist. 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. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman From att at golfledger.oen0.net Wed Aug 1 14:45:40 2001 From: att at golfledger.oen0.net (att at golfledger.oen0.net) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:45:40 -0400 Subject: Free Cell Phone, Free Shipping & $$ Back Message-ID: <200108012240.PAA12365@toad.com> Dear Subscriber, Get a Free Cell Phone! Free minutes offer!* Free long-distance offer!* Free handsfree headset!* Free charger!* Free shipping! & Money Back depending on carrier & plan* Click now for more information and to sign up! http://www.merchantcentral.com/cgi-bin/merchant/index.cgi?2061 * Free offers determined by carrier and plans available in your area. ______________________________________________________________ The following message was sent to you as an opt-in subscriber to Golfledger. We will continue to bring you valuable offers on the products and services that interest you most. If you wish to unsubscribe please go to the following url: http://66.115.19.39/golfledger.asp ______________________________________________________________ From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 1 15:42:11 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 18:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men Message-ID: Sandy wrote: >In California, (with some specific exceptions) >carrying a concealed knife is a felony, Actually, I was told that if it has a blade under 3 inches you're fine. My hands are so small I don't need a big one anyway. For what it's worth, here are the specs on the best California-street-legal defensive knife I've ever seen: Smith & Wesson Small SWAT Tactical Folder Each folder features a Kraton insert for a more secure gripping surface, and ergonomic contours. Depending on your needs, there are a variety of sizes and two colors to choose from as well. Small SWAT 2001 / 3001 Length, Open: 6" Length, Closed: 3.3" Blade Length: 2.8" Blade Material: 440C Steel Handle Material: Aluminum Locking Method: Liner Lock Opening Method: Thumbstud Clip: Yes Weight: 2.35oz The Black coated models feature a teflon coated blade and handle, with the handle coating textured for enhanced gripping during situations where the material may be slick. Each knife features a thumbstud for ease of opening, and a pocketclip situated for tip down carry." Highly recommended...hope that helps! ~Faustine. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Aug 1 11:27:07 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 20:27:07 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on > this list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade > your home. If they end up shooting you (and I think their is a You still ratted on him, Sandy. There's no point in giving idle feds extra angles to enter people's homes, preventably so. Even if nothing's there, you can always plant envidence, if the person is deemed sufficiently obnoxious by the authorities. (No, I don't know, and I don't want to know). Even if they just pay a friendly visit, I think there are much more interesting ways to spend one's afternoon than having to deal with nosy feds. > significant likelihood that they will), it will be in large part > because of your macho siege mentality. There's always a certain amount of testosterone flowing, and some posturing on cpunx. These are males' natural weaknesses, and exploiting them just because you can is usually considered bad personal style. > I "narced out" your behavior of several years ago. If you are stupid How is that relevant? > enough to still be carrying a knife illegally (when there are plenty > of legal options), then there is no helping you. On your head be it. Oh yeah, I ratted on you, and you're solely to blame for that. Makes sense. > More likely they are saying, "Ah fuck, I wish we'd known that before > Sandfort wised Tim up. Now we'll just have to go with plan B and > shoot him when we raid his house with a trumped up search warrant." Nothing goes over a little bit of comic relief. Haw! Haw! Haw! > And like Vinnie told you, the ones they send after you will be a LOT > better than he is. I think you should keep these names and stories to yourself, even if they do contribute to the local colorit. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 1 20:39:02 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 20:39:02 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. Was: Re: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist subpoenas In-Reply-To: <003c01c119f6$1d0439f0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B6868E6.17200.1A3D5A@localhost> -- On 31 Jul 2001, at 12:22, Black Unicorn wrote: > Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't > really comment on that aspect or what a court will consider > "impossible." What will not amuse a court is the appearance of > an ex ante concealment or disclosure in anticipation of court > action. If it looks like you knew it was going to be a court > issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in > trouble. Not only that but if you encrypt the stuff and it > doesn't appear to be recoverable it almost sounds tantamount to > destruction of evidence or spoliation (much more serious). > ("The intentional destruction of evidence... The destruction, > or the significant and meaningful alteration of a document or > instrument...") I've never seen a case play out like that but > I would certainly make the argument as a prosecutor. > Encrypting the stuff sure _looks_ like spoliation, particularly > if it seemed likely that the evidence would be the subject of a > judicial action. > > [...] > > There are legitimate purposes for escrowing it on the Isle of > Man over and above keeping it out of a court's hands. And there are legitimate purposes for encrypting it and "forgetting" the key. The big difference is "I forgot the key" is pretty much immune to cross examination, whereas your " legitimate" purposes for escrowing it on the isle of man requires a complicated cover story which w ill undoubtedly fall apart. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG l767+hopKaK3OhmU00x5dLsP9twS9adqsTDwX706 4GSivlIXyiUoZh4L503KHLLGtYLbjnNG8iNfZDzGr From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 1 21:12:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:12:26 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: <002501c11a49$7e78b820$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B6870BA.14953.38D367@localhost> -- > > I have never heard of such a law. Black Unicorn: > If you know you've committed some kind of weapons violations or some such and > you have reason to believe you have come to the attention of the authorities, > burning the record of those bulk AK-74 purchases might be a bad idea- if you > got caught. You are full of shit. I do not keep records of my butter purchases -- Why am I supposed to keep records of my ammo purchases? The only records one is required to keep are those that you claim exist in some filing, for example supporting your tax deductions. No one keeps the records they should, let alone the records law enforcement would like them to keep, and no one has every been punished for failure to keep such records. If this law that you have conjured out of your imagination existed, everyone would be punished for it, for everyone has broken it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Oj9UcAp8RSHCXuw8u7RlhqUHc74chNCrUWK2/9Q/ 4Xd24XW19DXZdpx9PbScFA7hohJEbS4IVCnIh9/a5 From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 1 21:12:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:12:26 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: References: <002501c11a49$7e78b820$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B6870BA.4010.38D37B@localhost> -- Tim Starr: > > > Show me exactly which law I am breaking by placing some of > > > my documents or files in a place even I cannot "turn over > > > all copies from." > > > > > > I have never heard of such a law. Black Unicorn: > > If you know you've committed some kind of weapons violations > > or some such and you have reason to believe you have come to > > the attention of the authorities, burning the record of those > > bulk AK-74 purchases might be a bad idea- if you got caught. Tim Starr: > IBM instructed employees to destroy records. At Intel, we > destroyed records--I did so as part of the "Crush" program (to > drive several competitors out of business). So long as we were > not being ordered to turn over evidence, not any kind of > crime. Same here. Black Unicorn is just making this stuff up. Black Unicorn > > This was my theory. Hence my language: "It almost sounds > > tantamount..." Hence my cite of the definition of spoliation > > below, for comparison. Hence my discussion of a prosecutor's > > likely tactic in making the argument. Encrypting to an > > "irrecoverable" key certainly comes close to if not outright > > meets the technical definition of spoliation in Black's Law > >Dictionary. What "irrecoverable" means will depend on the > >judge probably. Tim Starr: > But, Black Unicorn, you're the one who chose to lecture all the > children here. > > I have asked for a cite that shows that higher courts, up to > the Supreme Court, have held that using Freenet or encryption > would constitute spoliation, which you brought into the > discussion as a reason why Cypherpunks had better not count on > using encryption, or offshore storage, or any other means that > might cause the court to "not be amused." > > They didn't get John Gotti for whispering, so I doubt > "spoliation" is nearly the tool you and Aimee Farr seem to > think it is. In the case of Black Unicorn, it appears to me he was a lawyer who used to be in the business of finding loopholes in laws. In a world where governments seldom bother to read their own laws, and when they do so bother they find that everyone is a felon, that is a dying business. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG nTddd9XZ1iJqpU0/ppYWEqYOLwArmipx2klG73S 4n86cH5ve4oq1hb/spodUgjWicxLpkJKTrn3FMB7h From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 1 21:12:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:12:26 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: <003901c11adf$e7ea5d90$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B6870BA.29325.38D35D@localhost> -- "Trei, Peter > > Cleansing disks and memory of keys and plaintext isn't done > > to prevent some hypothetical court from looking at evidence; > > there are good, legally unremarkable reasons to do so, which > > are regarded as good hygiene and 'best practice' in the > > industry. Black Unicorn > Unfortunately, that conduct is going to be assessed by some old guy who was > once a lawyer, Then we are all guilty, and not one person has been prosecuted yet, which is as close to being legal as any act can possibly be in today's America. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 3MMmQiEVIfvH6y20TVf6+DEUtNHLYjeZtBX1MaTH 4acehcMco5Ge0UNNFSiMi2j8dkV+0u416jba1q5DZ From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Aug 1 12:23:39 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:23:39 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Eugene, do you think feds enter people's home because the people in > question may have carried a knife illegally years ago? What federal No. Feds enter houses for whatever reasons they deem appropriate to invent (at least in Bavaria they do, and it goes downhill from that, and, yes, Murrika is downhill from that). Pointing out possible targets makes no damn reason at all, unless you've got a personal vendetta, or a crappy personality. > law? What basis for a search warrant? What the hell are you talking > about? Are you really thus clueless, or are you just a natural? > Then tell them to get the hell off your property if they don't have a > warrant. That takes 5 seconds of your afternoon. We seem to have very different understandings of "friendly". Friendly is if they do have a search warrant, but don't incapacitate or kill you first. > You know, using the passive voice in this context is "bad personal style." Yah, whatever. You suck, have halitosis, and are generically an idiot. Do you feel better now? > Don't speak for anyone but yourself. If you think it's bad, just say so. > Don't hide behind "is usually considered." Any whether you like it or > not--whether anyone likes it or not, like Tim says, "I'll do what I want." Um, is this bad soap opera, or what? > Statute of limitations for starters. I'll leave the rest as an > exercise for the student. What's "statute of limitations" spelt in German? (And if vee don't like your nase ve haff vay to obtain a warrant, you knovv.). > Then versus now. Think about it. There's no point in mentioning a person's name wantonly, especially on this list. > What I said was funny, but the underlying reality is serious--deadly > serious. Tim's playing to the galleries increases his risk whether he > or wish to acknowledge it or not. As I said, it's a male weakness, and there's absofuckinglutely no point in playing with it. He's a big guy, if/assuming he wants to kill himself in a spectacular way, it's his problem. Not yours. > And I think you should stuff a sock in your cake hole. So we both > have opinions and we disagree. I can live with that. Live and and let live (he said, while stuffung a sock in his cake hole). From petro at bounty.org Wed Aug 1 21:28:28 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:28:28 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: <3B67DB3E.3203FD77@black.org> References: <3B67DB3E.3203FD77@black.org> Message-ID: At 3:34 AM -0700 8/1/01, Subcommander Bob wrote: >At 01:31 AM 8/1/01 -0700, Petro wrote: >> >>>I say this is bullshit. By your vague (no plausible cites, just some >1L literatlisms), whispering is spoliation. Failure to archive tape >recordings of conversations is spoliation. Use of encryption is >spoliation. Drawing the curtains is spoliation. >> >> No, but destroying audio tapes, or blanking over bits of them *is*. > >Actually if Giotti found a tape recorder (or keyboard bug) in his house >I'm pretty sure he'd >do more than blank its bits... Context and historical knowledge people. The reference was to Watergate, where Nixon ERASED BITS OF HIS OWN TAPE. From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 1 21:36:11 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:36:11 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: <3B6870BA.4010.38D37B@localhost> Message-ID: James A. Donald wrote: > In the case of Black Unicorn, it > appears to me he was a lawyer who > used to be in the business of > finding loopholes in laws. That's what ALL good lawyers do. Think of it as hacking the law. By the way, Tim May's secret identity is not "Tim Starr." S a n d y From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 1 22:13:12 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:13:12 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: <200108011854.OAA03556@mclean.mail.mindspring.net> References: Message-ID: <3B687EF8.29514.7075DF@localhost> -- On 1 Aug 2001, at 14:54, John Young wrote: > The time for confidences is over. Lawyers are considering > a change in their ethics about ratting on clients (see NY Times > today); priests are ratting about criminal confessions; reporters > are ratting on interviewees, psychiatrists are ratting patients. > DoJ and the courts are squeezing all the privileged listeners > along with ISPs and remailers and sysadmins and CDRs and > trusted circles and cryptographers -- so what makes anyone > think mathematics of concealment is any more protection than > a concealed weapon I have found a concealed weapon to be wonderfully effective protection. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bqsSWe9rP/yMGvoQHjl93FzC1ZS/g3HvZWu7P2V/ 4klW40XM7LlsB3QnfL86sfsGgKIc5Y2vM/TBzDjGM From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 1 22:17:38 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:17:38 -0700 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B688002.20579.7483E3@localhost> -- On 1 Aug 2001, at 14:33, Trei, Peter wrote: > No, Adobe did not use ROT13. They were quite a bit better than that Not significantly better. Same basic algorithm and weakness as ROT13 --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG n1bw14u4EICHhLIXuQsgDkABk92eCgbzm21yq7oH 4YcYWFe5f0mJBfMBkxqXtnasjxrzT2edzX05C7TLq From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 1 20:18:58 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:18:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Do not taunt happy-fun-court. In-Reply-To: <00a901c11ae6$94c6a090$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > See my (huge) posting on this, but I would suspect that this isn't great. > Were I operating one, which I am admittedly not, I'd want there to be no data > of evidentiary value ever hitting my memory or media. To some degree that's > not possible. In the alternative, actually _disabling_ logging is the best > policy, in my view. The evidence never existed in the first place then. It > suddenly becomes a challenge to show some kind of conspiracy on your part > since the actual spoliation claim is harder to make. Showing conspiracy for > anything with respect to either probably starts hard and gets marginally less > hard in this order: > > a) A middle remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) about > original sender, content or recipient. > > The only evidence of value here would be: > Time of message traversing the mailer (only useful if the specific message can > be linked to the sender which- if mixmaster works- isn't feasible). > Size of message (only useful if the specific message can be linked to the > sender and only useful in so far as the message can be constituted and be said > to be "at least size X" which- if mixmaster works- isn't feasible > > b) A back end remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) about > content or original sender. > > Evidence here in addition to the above: > Recipient address. > Recipient public key (if content is encrypted before mixmaster). > Time of actual delivery to recipients SMTP server. > > c) A front end remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) > about content or recipient. > > Evidence here in addition to a) : > Sender address. > > d) A "one hop" remailer. > > Evidence available: > All of the above. > > Given that even d) doesn't provide much (and less than not much if you're > never allowing logs to be written in the first place) you can probably make > some guesses about the likelihood of being vulnerable here. > > > Regardless, I haven't had the time to implement such a system anyway. > > > > My point here is that, if you are going to be using the "off-shore > > attorney" system of preserving your data, I think it would be helpful if > > there was a legitimate reason for placing your information in the hands of > > this other entity (other than protection from the US courts.) > > I really suggest that. Remember that you're going to have to convince people, > not code, or automated rule sets, that you're a decent and non-criminal person > if you do get called to the mat. Specious sounding arguments about "document > destruction policies" and the like, while perhaps totally technically correct, > aren't necessarily going to help you much- as the mountain of case crap I just > typed in earlier should show. > > Since this has become a loud and argumentative issue perhaps it's time for one > of the "what remains to be done" postings I used to do with a long section on > what the next set of remailers should be incorporating. > > Advice that will be ignored or regarded, depending on the moods of the > listeners perhaps. igor (v 0.1) 4-11-01 A remailer for Plan 9 by James Choate ravage at ssz.com http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18 One of the primary values of the Internet is email. It provides a reliable and consistent link across time and space. It is the proto-typical killer app. However, to use email effectively there should be two additional features. We don't promise more don't exist. The first feature is the ability to reflect or remail a single email to many recipients. The second is to strip identifying header information from the sender prior to the subscriber getting it. igor does not use 'embedded routing commands' like many other anonymous remailer packages. We believe that tampering or altering the body of the email is simply wrong. We offer two way to input data into igor. The first is through Subject: line escaped commands and the second is through additional header files. An example of each is, Subject: Some title or other [igor: some_commands, must_come_last] or, X-igor: some_commands This allows the first remailer to strip the command data out and then process the email as if igor had never been involved. igor supports limited routing selection, which is intended to make traffic analysis harder. igor sends individual emails embedded in igor-specific header info to eliminate as much interaction with the email itself. All inter-igor traffic is encrypted with PK's managed by the Evil Geniuses. With respect to key management, I am not a big believer in current schemes. I don't believe the 'PGP Ring of Trust' is workable because of scaling problems. What I intend is for each remailer to 'know' only a small group of other remailers (limited to three for testing, but the design will support an unlimited number technicaly). So, when igor_1 hands off to igor_2, all igor_2 knows is that he's k in a n-length chain. He subtracts one and randomly selects another igor other than igor_1 to send it to. The remailer igor_2 sends it to, igor_3, will NOT know about igor_1 so it is completely possible that igor_3 may send an email right back to igor_1 for delivery to the recipient. Provided of course that igor_1 and igor_3 have had prior communications. The intent, at least in simple principle, was to allow each key to be 'authorized' to the standards of each operator. I felt this offered a reasonably strong approach and should handle scaling well. On the flip sice, if igor_2 sends covor traffic he won't send it to igor_1 for that mail. I felt that sending igor_1 any sort of traffic was counter productive unless you always sent traffic back to the initiator remailer. This seems 'evil' to me. It's a start... My current problem is deciding what encryption scheme to use for inter-igor relays...? Plan 9 is an operating system developed by the fathers of *nix to 'fix' the problem of *nix. The system has integrated and fully scalable I/O-authorization kernels, process kernels, and file system kernels. Each kernel is connected through a authorization mechanism that doesn't send keys over the network. The low level network layer, Plan 9, is currently implimented with DES. At some point this should be replaced with something a tad more stout. It also needs a mechanism to anonymize file and process space access. Strong crypto is clearly a pre-requisite for this. Once those features are in place a true 'Data Haven' could be easily implimented. Plan 9 is open source and can be obtained from, http://plan9.bell-labs.com The only transvestite operating system in existence, and so what if the bunny is ugly? Route Commands (ie igor: * * ...): strip Strip the From: header zombie Strip the From: header and replace with From: Walking Dead (dead at ssz.com) Traffic TO dead at ssz.com would go to /dev/null. route# Route the message through # other igor nodes, not selectable by the user, where # is from 1 to 3. route0 is assumed and means send to recipient directly cover Provide cover traffic for each outbound email by sending all know igors a single bogus email. This provides n-copy cover traffic. subscribe $ Subscribe to mailing list $ Example: To: igor at ssz.com Subject: [igor: subscribe {some user at place} cypherpunks] If no user, use From:@ who $ Who is subscribed to list $? info $ Provide info on list $ help Request an info-help file igor Configuration Parameters (igor.conf): MyPubKey This remailers public key, non-traffic related encryption key. Used for encrypting traffic or data. MyOwnKey This remailers private key, non-traffic related de-cryption key. Used for decrypting traffic or data. MyPubRing My public key ring, this contains a mapping of each 'authorized' igor remailer we will operate with. We use this key to encrypt traffic TO the listed remailers. There are no line length limits. e.g. igor at foo.bar#242ds032fdsasetewdvdsasdfewwere... igor at bar.org#2303210343203828353234898324397... cypherpunks at ssz.com#23XD24398dDWSc35K2)3C2#d... ... MyOwnRing My private key ring, this contains a mapping of each 'authorized' igor remailer we will operate with. We use this key to decrypt traffic FROM the listed remailers. GHeader: $ Place this at the beginning of all emails through this remailer GFooter: $ Place this at the foot of all emails through this remailer Open: *, *, *, ... These mailing lists will provide all info to any reqeustor List: *, *, *, ... These mailing lists will provide info only to a current subscriber Close: *, *, *, ... These mailing lists will not provide any info Verify: *, *, *, ... These mailing lists always verify each operation through the Evil Geniuses. ArchDir $ The archive files should go in the $ directory Archive: *, *, *, ... These mailing lists will create an archive file, #.arc User Accounts: Evil Genius - self explanatory igor - remailer contact account (mail address that executes program) master - owner of remailer (a person who receives status and such) dead - the 'anonymizer' account undead - another trusted 'igor' remailer Standard Accounts: master:"Evil Genius #1":{other Evil Genius'} igor:master:{list of other users} dead:igor:{nothing here} list_name:igor:{lot of subscribers, a file} Copyright 2001 All rights reserved Permission to use for non-commercial purposes only is granted. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From info at homebizafrica.com Wed Aug 1 15:40:04 2001 From: info at homebizafrica.com (Daniel Oherein) Date: 1 Aug 2001 22:40:04 -0000 Subject: ALL Payment Must Be Cleared Today! Message-ID: <20010801224004.2540.qmail@web26.iuinc.com> Hi cypherpunks at cyberpass.net Do you have time to review my ebook? Removal Notice at the bottom of this message =========================================== or simply: send message to Smart_Oherein at prontomail.com?Subject=RemoveMe and please state the email to be removed. ..... =========VACANCIES EXIT===WANTED URGENTLY= INTERNATIONAL== QUALIFICATIONS: 1. ONLY Highly experienced Internet Marketers to earn US$79.00 per sales of my ebook. 2. All Freebies: Please stay clear. DO NOT APPLY. 3. MLM believers: YOUR APPLICATION WILL BE THROWN TO THE TRASH WE ONLY WANT SERIOUS PEOPLE TO SELL ONE BOOK AND KEEP ALL THE MONEY. NO AFFILIATES NEEDED! http://www.homebizafrica.com/ebook1.htm Did you get paid today for your online activities? I got paid today from three different banks verotel: Palpal: e-Gold Fax order Though I have not got to the post office to check for postal orders and cold cheques. All from this my email course I once asked you to review and tried it for free. ============================================================== BEST SELLING ON-LINE BUSINESSES THAT ARE KEPT SECRET! - and Learn How You Can Get Into Them Fast� -------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft poducts, Paypal gift club, Gambling and Lottery, Viagra, Viacreme "alias Viagra for Women", Mailing lists and ebooks, and other top selling online businesses that are best kept secret by their owners and how to start them...by Daniel Oherein ============================================================== Four orders came in today - new month just starting Package #2 = US$79.95 2 x Package#1 = US$70.00 awaiting credit card authorisation for another US$35.00 You don't have to believe me see here JUST READ THE BOOK HERE: http://www.homebizafrica.com/ebook1.htm To see while this should be the right business for you. or see this. ----- Original Message ----- From: Verotel Payments To: Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:25 AM Subject: Verotel Payout > Dear Daniel Oherein, > > Today, 01/08/2001, we have issued you a payment > for the Verotel credit card and check > transactions which were processed on your website > between 0-1/01/2001 and 0-1/16/2001. > > The payment also includes the phone transactions > from the month of May. > > Your payment is transferred by the international > SWIFT network from one of our bank accounts > worldwide. Normally payments will be > received by your bank within 48 hours. Because > of international regulations your bank might > hold on to your funds for a couple of days more. > This period could be as long as 10 days. Payments > are not processed during the weekend. > > If you have any questions about your payments, > please contact us > > With kind regards, > > FREE Stuff and MlM doesn't work. Read the course and see how you can be making instant money! Not the story of the BIG DOGS....this is Daniel Oherein's story. To order http://www.homebizafrica.com/ebook1.htm Free trial: http://www.homebizafrica.com/freetrial.zip Free stuff is bad. Daniel Oherein - Publisher. P.S. For you to start up fast we've included the following Big Bonus ONLY for NOW: =================================================== Increase your sales by targeting MILLIONS of buyers via e-mail! If you REALLY want to get the word out regarding your products or services, direct email marketing is the BEST way to do so, PERIOD! Advertising in newsgroups and classifieds is good, but you're competing with hundreds--even THOUSANDS of other ads. Will your customers see YOUR ad in the midst of all the others? Free Classifieds? (Don't work) Web Site? (Takes thousands of visitors) Banners? (Expensive and iffy) E-Zine? (They better have a huge list) Search Engines? (Easily buried with thousands of others) Direct Email Marketing will allow you to DIRECTLY contact your potential customers. They are much more likely to take the time to read about what you have to offer if it was as easy as reading it via email rather than searching through countless newsgroup or classified ads. Our Fresh Addresses Will Bring You INCREDIBLE Results! Can you imagine the response you would receive after sending your ad to thousands of people who are interested in your product or service? When you combined the power of direct targeted e-mail advertising with the tools we give you, the possibilities are endless! Your order Now include: * 10 Million General Email Addresses, 250,000 TARGETED Email Addresses, * Bulk e-mail software to automate your mailings! Sends up to 80,000 e-mails per hour with the click of a button--WITHOUT using your ISP's server! * Email Marketing Guide--Is there a difference between SPAM and targeted e-mail marketing? YES! This guide will show you how to mail responsibly and effectively! * Software to help you write powerful email ads that produce results! * The ULTIMATE safe list! Mail to over ONE MILLION people daily, SPAM-FREE! * ...and much, much more! * A free copy of The Big Dogs' Stories - The Million Dollar Email Strategies. Wishing you much success, My current price with not last long as I know I could sell the course for US$150.00 with all these bonuses. Get it right now at http://www.homebizafrica.com/ebook1.htm Daniel Oherein The message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress, per Section 301,Paragraph(a)(2)(C)of S. 1618, this letter cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender includes contact information & a method of removal which you will find here and at the bottom of this message. To remove your email now: ============================================================ (If the link does not work, copy and paste the link into your browser) ============================================= AOL Users, we've tried to include this link if you want to remove your email: Click Here ============================================== or send message to Smart_Oherein at prontomail.com?Subject=RemoveMe and please state the email to be removed. From declan at well.com Wed Aug 1 20:21:21 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:21:21 -0400 Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010801231932.021b3aa0@mail.well.com> At 02:52 PM 8/1/01 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: >Politicians have too much trouble justifying their >existence to let a chance like this slip through. Hahahaha. Actually, I'm starting to feel sorry for politicans, especially the folks in Congress. Think of it: They have such crude tools available to them. They can hold hearings or introduce legislation -- that's about it. Not much in the way of options. Poor saps. We should provide more creative outlets for them. Thus we get wacky attempts like Sen. Torricelli's don't-email-someone-unless-you-want-to-go-to-jail bill I wrote about for Wired today. -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 1 20:24:19 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:24:19 -0400 Subject: biochemwomdterror net terror in dc -- postponed Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010801232358.02104d50@mail.well.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 1, 2001 MEDIA ADVISORY Senators Bennett and Kyl Postpone Thursday News Conference WASHINGTON, DC ­ U.S. Senators Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) will postpone tomorrow's news conference on legislation to facilitate joint federal and private industry efforts to protect critical infrastructures from disruptive and destructive attacks. The news conference will be re-scheduled in September. (The news conference had been scheduled for Thursday, August 2 at 11:30 am in the Mike Mansfield Room (S-207) in the U.S. Capitol.) Please contact Betsy Holahan of the JEC at 202-224-0378 with any questions. -30- From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Wed Aug 1 21:34:56 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:34:56 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108020434.AAA30579@www.infogeneratorpro.com> Friend- Is your ONLINE Business AUTOMATED?? "Unlimited Autoresponder" Package www.pplpro2000.com get signed up today and take advantage of this special offer! ***** SPECIAL OFFER! ***** FOR A LIMITED TIME! Purchase InfoGeneratorPRO's Annually Billing "Unlimited Autoresponder" Package! Normally, 12 months costs $299.40, BUY 9 MONTHS NOW for $224.95 and RECEIVE an EXTRA 3 MONTHS at NO EXTRA CHARGE! That's 12 MONTHS for $224.95! SAVE $75.00! BUY NOW! TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SAVINGS www.pplpro2000.com get signed up today and take advantage of this special offer! This Amazing TOOL will automate and take your ONLINE business to the NEXT Level!! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from this list: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe Remove yourself from all lists at InfoGeneratorPRO: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe_all Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Wed Aug 1 21:36:02 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:36:02 -0400 Subject: HUGE INCOME$$ Automate NOW- Friend Message-ID: <200108020436.AAA31894@www.infogeneratorpro.com> Friend- Is your ONLINE Business AUTOMATED?? "Unlimited Autoresponder" Package www.pplpro2000.com get signed up today and take advantage of this special offer! ***** SPECIAL OFFER! ***** FOR A LIMITED TIME! Purchase InfoGeneratorPRO's Annually Billing "Unlimited Autoresponder" Package! Normally, 12 months costs $299.40, BUY 9 MONTHS NOW for $224.95 and RECEIVE an EXTRA 3 MONTHS at NO EXTRA CHARGE! That's 12 MONTHS for $224.95! SAVE $75.00! BUY NOW! TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SAVINGS www.pplpro2000.com get signed up today and take advantage of this special offer! This Amazing TOOL will automate and take your ONLINE business to the NEXT Level!! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from this list: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe Remove yourself from all lists at InfoGeneratorPRO: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe_all Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From twsp at netexecutive.com Thu Aug 2 00:59:40 2001 From: twsp at netexecutive.com (TWSP) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:59:40 Subject: Your Free Market Browser... Message-ID: <200108020847.f728lkJ27991@rigel.cyberpass.net> That's Right! We're Giving It Away! Your download instructions are below: To protect you from viruses we have provided you with a html email. To view this HTML email, either click-on or copy/paste into your web-browser this link: http://www.cbroftx.com/server/marketbrowser.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------ If this email reached you in error, we apologize. Please send an email to twsp at netexecutive.com to be removed. Our apology for any inconvenience. From bill.stewart at pobox.com Thu Aug 2 01:31:52 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 01:31:52 -0700 Subject: Stegotext in usenet as offsite backup In-Reply-To: References: <3B66809A.6842.48A7CE7@localhost> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010801232403.0383d5e0@idiom.com> At 11:52 AM 07/31/2001 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >It would be handy, from my point of view, to use usenet as >an "offsite backup" solution -- posting encrypted source >for work-in-progress on binary newsgroups so I could just >go back and nab it out of the archives if I ever have a >disk crash or in case the computer gets stolen. "Your message may cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars." Usenet may be effective for Blacknet and samizdat and unreliable storage of critical secrets where the Fedz won't stomp them all out, but it doesn't scale well for normal backups. You can use one of those "100megsfree.com" sites, or buy storage, and use some anonymizer to stash your stuff there. The real advantage of using Usenet as opposed to a non-broadcast medium is that it's much harder for eavesdroppers to find the people reading it when they're targeting the writer, so you can use a Blacknet service anywhere; if that's not relevant, then don't bother. A broadcast medium like Usenet used to flood the net with huge numbers of copies for a week or so, and after that only a few archive sites like Deja would have it in findable form. That's probably less true today, since more people read it with NNTP on their ISP's machine, and many non-huge ISPs use a small number of NNTP service providers instead of doing their own, while the Dejanews-like services are less dependable. Stegoizing usually inflates your data by a factor of 10 or so, if you're trying to use credible stego (as opposed to simply titling your cyphertext as pic12345.jpg or maybe adding some file headers.) The real problem is that most of the searchable Usenet archive services ignore binary attachments, so they won't keep the contents of your file. So you'll need to use a stego system that turns it into text, like Peter Wayner's Mimic Functions or Dilbert's Pointy-Haired-Boss-Speak, adding yet another layer of content inflation. >Stegograms present an interesting copyright question for >the legally inclined; if I'm using usenet archives as offsite >backup via stegograms, I'm okay with the release and public >use of the stegogram, which most folks will interpret as >being the same as the covertext. But would that entangle >the copyright on the stegotext as well? Or if somebody took >the stegogram and figured it out, would I have legal recourse >to stop them from doing anything with my code? Anything you post on Usenet is pretty much toast. If you make plaintext world readable, it's world copyable; if you don't like that, only post cyphertext. Maybe the Berne Convention theoretically protects you, but so what? You're proposing putting this stuff on Usenet instead of a storage site because it's too hot for you to handle, so don't expect the US copyright system to help you much :-) It's especially rough on any Plausible Deniability you might have had. From alan at clueserver.org Thu Aug 2 01:40:28 2001 From: alan at clueserver.org (Alan Olsen) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 01:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010801231932.021b3aa0@mail.well.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > At 02:52 PM 8/1/01 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > >Politicians have too much trouble justifying their > >existence to let a chance like this slip through. > > Hahahaha. Actually, I'm starting to feel sorry for politicans, especially > the folks in Congress. Think of it: They have such crude tools available to > them. They can hold hearings or introduce legislation -- that's about it. > Not much in the way of options. Poor saps. We should provide more creative > outlets for them. > > Thus we get wacky attempts like Sen. Torricelli's > don't-email-someone-unless-you-want-to-go-to-jail bill I wrote about for > Wired today. It would be worth it to go just for the purpose of asking what they were going to do about cereal killers. (Of course, I don't think I could keep a straight face in the building, let alone in front of those goons...) 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. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman From free1 at ausi.com Thu Aug 2 02:22:12 2001 From: free1 at ausi.com (FREE ALL) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:22:12 -0700 Subject: Unsubscribe for 55 Million Safe Lists and Email Software Message-ID: <200108020922.CAA24855@mail5.bigmailbox.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From alan at clueserver.org Thu Aug 2 02:22:25 2001 From: alan at clueserver.org (Alan Olsen) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: <20010802061323.20815.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: On 2 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > > The prosecutors who read this list must be chortling. > > Chortling is a form of laughter. Prosecutors, like Ukrainian customs > agents, have had their sense of humor surgically removed, so I doubt > they chortle very much. unless it involves wounded kittens or battered small children. (Deep fried in a light tempura...) 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. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman From FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com Thu Aug 2 01:42:34 2001 From: FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com (Your Membership Newsletter) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:42:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your Membership Exchange, #441 Message-ID: <20010802084234.66C3C25CB9@rovdb001.roving.com> Your Membership Exchange, Issue #441 (August 2, 2001) ______________________________________________________ Your Membership Daily Exchange >>>>>>>>>>> Issue #441 <> 08-02-01 <<<<<<<<<<<< Your place to exchange ideas, ask questions, swap links, and share your skills! ______________________________________________________ Removal/Unsubscribe instructions are included at the bottom for members who do not wish to receive additional issues of this publication. ______________________________________________________ You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com ______________________________________________________ Today's Special Announcement: Right now, this week only - We have left over inventory, it's unsold, but not for long. If you could use 1 million banner ads all targeted and dirt cheap go here today. This package is guaranteed!! It's tough to fail when you can show your ad to 1,000 people for less than a buck! A free custom banner will be made for you with this deal! http://BannersGoMLM.com/promo/million-nl.html ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ >> Ideas, Tips, & Information R. DeLong: More on the SirCam virus >> Q & A ANSWERS: - What can I do about my computer freezing? J. Shofstall: Many factors in the operating system that cause conflicts >> MEMBER SHOWCASES >> MEMBER *REVIEWS* - Sites to Review: #141, #142, #143 & #144! - Site #140 Reviewed! ______________________________________________________ >>>>>> Ideas, Tips, & Information <<<<<< Do you have a special software program you find helpful, or even absolutely necessary? A neat tip that makes your online life a little easier? Share it and help other members save time, frustration, and a few steps in the learning curve. Submit your ideas, tips and information to MyInput at AEOpublishing.com From mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu Wed Aug 1 22:20:09 2001 From: mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu (lcs Mixmaster Remailer) Date: 2 Aug 2001 05:20:09 -0000 Subject: Do not taunt happy-fun-court. Message-ID: <20010802052009.25258.qmail@nym.alias.net> http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZV7P5HVPC&live=true&cst=1&pc=3&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0 talks about the use of the Communications Decency Act to defend a private individual. (Sorry about the absurdly long URL; for a short while you will find it as the first article at http://www.law.com/professionals/iplaw.html.) The suit is a somewhat complicated battle, Quackwatch vs Quack. But basically the judge threw out a lawsuit against someone who re-posted a libelous article on a newsgroup: "[A]s a user of an interactive computer service, that is, a newsgroup, [the defendant] is not the publisher or speaker of [the] piece. Thus, she cannot be civilly liable for posting it on the Internet. She is immune," wrote Richman. He based this on the CDA's immunization of internet services when their users post offending material. Apparently the wording of the law can apply to private individuals as well, if they are not the original authors. This sounds questionable, since the private party is playing a much more active role in selecting what material to republish than an internet service. The article quotes a critic, "Someone could put libelous information on the Internet and duck court action by having someone else author it, Grell said." The relevance is of course to remailer operators. If someone is immune who personally selects a libelous article and reposts it, then surely a remailer operator who reposts articles en masse without any review of the data would be protected as well. The CDA should be a strong shield for remailers, especially if rulings like this stand which extend its protection even to private individuals. From gnu at toad.com Thu Aug 2 05:43:12 2001 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 05:43:12 -0700 Subject: *Protecting* civil liberties with facial recognition Message-ID: <200108021243.FAA06227@toad.com> See: Matching Faces With Mug Shots http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12629-2001Jul31.html Perhaps the c'punks should put some effort into installing facial recognition systems in places where they will point out TO THE PUBLIC undercover cops, FBI agitators posing as demonstrators, or other undesirable citizens. How about at the next WTO meeting (not that I sympathize with the anti-globalists, but when both sides are thugs, as in Genoa, then they both deserve to be exposed). Hmm, if DARPA or the Army is going to digitize its soldiers' faces for an IFF system, maybe we can FOIA that database. Maybe we can stir up some doubts in even the cops' minds about whether this technology is evil or beneficial. Or at least hoist them on their own petard. Brewster -- can we run this software over the set of pictures of people on the Internet that your Web spider pulls down? Luckily, picturephones never caught on -- or Ma Bell would be working hand in hand with the government to monitor every citizen's every phone call, and compare who's on it with the FBI and NSA watch list. Oops, I forgot the voice recognition software and the permanent international call wiretaps; I guess they already are. John From drevil at sidereal.kz Wed Aug 1 23:13:23 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 2 Aug 2001 06:13:23 -0000 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: (message from Tim May on Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:32:59 -0700) References: Message-ID: <20010802061323.20815.qmail@sidereal.kz> > The prosecutors who read this list must be chortling. Chortling is a form of laughter. Prosecutors, like Ukrainian customs agents, have had their sense of humor surgically removed, so I doubt they chortle very much. From 1support at microsoft.com Thu Aug 2 06:32:21 2001 From: 1support at microsoft.com (1support at microsoft.com) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 06:32:21 Subject: Information You Requested from Microsoft.com Message-ID: NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT MONITORED. Welcome to Microsoft Online ID secure Internet environment! Below is your membership information. Please keep this confirmation mail as a record of your password. Consider this information confidential and treat accordingly. Your Microsoft Online ID Password is: cypherpunks A Microsoft Online ID provides access to various Microsoft secured programs. Please check the Frequently Asked Questions and/or Help page of the program you are accessing for questions. Sincerely, Microsoft Online ID Administrator From alqaeda at hq.org Thu Aug 2 06:39:49 2001 From: alqaeda at hq.org (Alfred Qaeda) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 06:39:49 -0700 Subject: Sircam releases govt docs in Ukraine Message-ID: <3B695825.9914EF0A@hq.org> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010802/wr/tech_ukraine_virus_dc_1.html Thursday August 2 6:57 AM ET Website Says Virus Leaked Ukrainian Secret Documents KIEV, Ukraine (Reuters) - A Ukrainian Web site said on Thursday it had received secret documents from the administration of President Leonid Kuchma due to a computer virus that infected government computers and e-mailed it the files. ``The Sircam virus, having infected the computers in the presidential administration, is bombarding our editorial department with their documents,'' said the ForUm news Web site (www.for-ua.com). Administration officials declined to say whether their security had been breached, but told Reuters they had started an investigation into whether any of their computers were infected with viruses. ForUm printed one of the documents it said it had received -- a timetable for Kuchma's movements on Ukraine's 10th anniversary of independence later this month. Kuchma's exact movements are usually a tightly guarded secret. The Sircam virus, which first emerged in July, is a so-called e-mail worm which arrives as an e-mail attachment and sends copies of itself to names and addresses in the infected computer's address book. ----- Tim, you don't write Ukrainian, do you? From dunes at tbwt.com Thu Aug 2 07:04:35 2001 From: dunes at tbwt.com (dunes at tbwt.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 07:04:35 Subject: Let this company BUILD your downline!!! Message-ID: <522.427101.100815@mailerate> Hello, Have the First Right to join the new company - be on top the forced members matrix and secure your spot!! Just opened few days old! 500 to 600 members sign up daily. Request for info, mailto:request_info at newdiscovery.ws?subject=info! HURRY and let this company BUILD your downline!! Have a nice day! ................................................................ .................................... To be removed from future mailing list: mailto:remove at newdiscovery.ws?subject=remove me! Thanks. From brewster at archive.org Thu Aug 2 07:20:31 2001 From: brewster at archive.org (Brewster Kahle) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 07:20:31 -0700 Subject: *Protecting* civil liberties with facial recognition In-Reply-To: <200108021243.FAA06227@toad.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010802071756.03486780@exchange.alexa.com> There do happen to be a large collection (very large) of web images in a free-to-use library, called the Internet Archive... In fact, these images are on a parallel supercomputer made up of hundreds of linux boxes, so if someone writes the software to do this detection we could run it on the images in the collection. Let me know how a public library can help. -brewster At 05:43 AM 8/2/2001 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: > See: Matching Faces With Mug Shots > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12629-2001Jul31.html > >Perhaps the c'punks should put some effort into installing facial >recognition systems in places where they will point out TO THE PUBLIC >undercover cops, FBI agitators posing as demonstrators, or other >undesirable citizens. How about at the next WTO meeting (not that >I sympathize with the anti-globalists, but when both sides are thugs, >as in Genoa, then they both deserve to be exposed). > >Hmm, if DARPA or the Army is going to digitize its soldiers' faces for >an IFF system, maybe we can FOIA that database. > >Maybe we can stir up some doubts in even the cops' minds about >whether this technology is evil or beneficial. Or at least hoist >them on their own petard. > >Brewster -- can we run this software over the set of pictures >of people on the Internet that your Web spider pulls down? > >Luckily, picturephones never caught on -- or Ma Bell would be working >hand in hand with the government to monitor every citizen's every >phone call, and compare who's on it with the FBI and NSA watch list. >Oops, I forgot the voice recognition software and the permanent >international call wiretaps; I guess they already are. > > John From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 05:24:26 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 07:24:26 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Vinge and the Singularity Message-ID: <3B69467A.AD55172B@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/02/0137256.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 05:30:12 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 07:30:12 -0500 Subject: Backlash stopping red-light cameras -- The Washington Times Message-ID: <3B6947D4.8900D05E@ssz.com> http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20010802-88121372.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From alqaeda at hq.org Thu Aug 2 07:36:06 2001 From: alqaeda at hq.org (Alfred Qaeda) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 07:36:06 -0700 Subject: Just because it is made public doesn't mean it's declassified Message-ID: <3B696556.8124B382@hq.org> M.I.T. Physicist Says Pentagon Is Trying to Silence Him by James Dao WASHINGTON - A leading critic of the military's missile defense testing program has accused the Pentagon of trying to silence him and intimidate his employer, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by investigating him for disseminating classified documents. The case has raised questions about whether a document can be considered secret if it is widely available to the public. And it has touched off a dispute between the critic, Theodore A. Postol, and M.I.T. over how to balance academic freedom with the university's obligations to cooperate with Pentagon investigators. At issue is correspondence between Dr. Postol, a physicist, and the General Accounting Office, an investigative branch of Congress, in which he accused the Pentagon of using doctored data to defend missile defense technology. Dr. Postol said his conclusions had been based on an unclassified report, which he disseminated over the Internet and can now be downloaded from Web sites around the world, including one in Russia. But after Dr. Postol began distributing the report last year, the Pentagon determined that it contained secret information. This month, Defense Department investigators asked M.I.T. officials to stop Dr. Postol from disseminating that information and to confiscate the document from him. The university has not done so. But in an e-mail message to Dr. Postol on Monday, Charles M. Vest, the university president, said M.I.T. might be required to ``move forward with at least the initial steps'' ordered by Defense Security Service, a Pentagon agency. Dr. Postol provided a copy of that message to The New York Times. ``They are basically threatening M.I.T. that it will lose its contract to run this big laboratory if they don't abide by these demands,'' Dr. Postol said in an interview. The institute operates the Lincoln Laboratory at Hanscom Air Force Base in Lexington, Mass., under contract with the Defense Department to do research into missile defense, weather forecasting, military surveillance and other sophisticated technologies. The lab's contract with the Pentagon was worth $319 million last year. M.I.T. officials declined to speculate today on whether Dr. Vest would cooperate with the Pentagon's requests. But Dr. Vest issued a written statement that raised questions about the investigation of Dr. Postol. ``While M.I.T. certainly abides by the laws that protect national security, we also believe that the legitimate tools of classification of secrets should not be misused to limit responsible debate,'' the statement said. ``Trying to treat widely available public information as `secret' is a particular concern.'' Pentagon officials declined to discuss details of their investigation. But Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, argued that the department was obligated to stop Dr. Postol from disseminating potentially damaging information, even if it was readily available. ``Just because it is made public doesn't mean it's declassified,'' Colonel Lehner said. Dr. Postol agreed that the information was potentially damaging, but only because it showed that the Pentagon was far from developing effective antimissile weapons. For years, Dr. Postol has argued that the Pentagon's prototype antimissile system could not distinguish between decoys and enemy warheads. He has joined forces with an engineer, Nira Schwartz, who has accused her former employer, TRW, a military contractor, of faking tests and evaluations of the technology to make it appear more successful than it was. The latest dispute arose when the Pentagon hired five scientists, including two from M.I.T.'s Lincoln Laboratory, to review TRW's technology in the wake of Dr. Schwartz's accusations. The resulting report disputed Dr. Schwartz's assertions and has been used to defend the missile defense program on Capitol Hill. But Dr. Postol, who in the 1990's successfully challenged the effectiveness of Patriot missiles in the Persian Gulf war, analyzed the report and concluded it had distorted data to make it appear that available technology could reliably distinguish warheads from decoys. In fact, Dr. Postol contends, that technology does not yet exist. The Pentagon and TRW have denied that assertion. Dr. Postol first raised concerns about the Pentagon report in a letter to the White House last year. Not long after, the Pentagon determined that officials had inadvertently not removed classified information from the report before releasing it, including the tables and diagrams Dr. Postol has used to attack the testing program. But Dr. Postol, who has done work for the Pentagon and stands to lose his security clearance, contends that the Pentagon's actions smack of a cover-up. He has recruited supporters in Congress. Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, has asked the Pentagon to review Dr. Postol's accusations about the report. Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, has asked the General Accounting Office to study the Defense Department's classification policy. ``The question that naturally arises is whether such a policy really protects national security or whether it merely serves to stifle the ability of Dr. Postol to communicate his views,'' Mr. Markey asks in a letter sent to the accounting office today. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0727-02.htm from NYTimes From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 2 08:04:05 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:04:05 -0700 Subject: Sircam releases govt docs in Ukraine In-Reply-To: <3B695825.9914EF0A@hq.org> References: <3B695825.9914EF0A@hq.org> Message-ID: At 6:39 AM -0700 8/2/01, Alfred Qaeda wrote: >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010802/wr/tech_ukraine_virus_dc_1.html > > >Thursday August 2 6:57 AM ET > > Website Says Virus Leaked Ukrainian Secret > Documents > > KIEV, Ukraine (Reuters) - A Ukrainian Web site said on >Thursday it had > received secret documents from the administration of >President Leonid > Kuchma due to a computer virus that infected government >computers and > e-mailed it the files. >----- >Tim, you don't write Ukrainian, do you? Life imitates art, eh? --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From gnu at toad.com Thu Aug 2 08:22:42 2001 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 08:22:42 -0700 Subject: Just because it is made public doesn't mean it's declassified In-Reply-To: <3B696556.8124B382@hq.org> Message-ID: <200108021522.IAA09055@toad.com> Just because it is public DOES mean it's declassified. There are Supreme Court cases on this. If the government can recover all the copies, then it can REclassify it. But if it can't, then the document is not classified. I ran into this situation when digging up some of William Friedman's early work from the government. I sued under FOIA to get copies, the gov't declared that the documents were top secret, and I got copies from public libraries and filed them with the court. The government complained bitterly, but a day after the New York Times story broke, they dropped the issue. Thus: Shine a bright, bright light ANYTIME they start to pull this sort of garbage. And make sure you've stashed copies of the document in half a dozen unlikely places, before letting the government know you have the document. It's completely likely that they'll send their bully-boys to steal it from you so they can reclassify it, if you have the only copy. John From dog3 at ns.charc.net Thu Aug 2 05:46:28 2001 From: dog3 at ns.charc.net (cubic-dog) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Red Light Cameras, I don't get it. Message-ID: years ago, when I was a MP in Germany, I used to chuckle over the red light cameras and camera speed traps used by the Polizei. Neat idea, never work in the states, we have a 4th amendment after all. Then the technology started moving over here. I was suprised at first, but then, I though about how many bank cameras had been used to build cases against bank robbers, and no one ever fussed about it. I wasn't very happy about this, but again, no one ever fussed about cameras in banks, or convience stores et al. I still don't like it, years ago, when these things started showing up in Alexandria Va, someone posted to the list about it, and no one even commented. So I figgured it was a non issue. Now, for some reason, folks are getting their panties in a knot over this. What's the big deal? Yeah, big brother has a new surveillence tool, so what? From bob at black.org Thu Aug 2 08:58:19 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 08:58:19 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men Message-ID: <3B69789A.3E24CFE7@black.org> At 06:42 PM 8/1/01 -0400, Faustine wrote: > For what it's worth, here >are the specs on the best California-street-legal defensive knife I've ever >seen: > >Smith & Wesson Small SWAT Tactical Folder > Unfortunately S & W are being boycotted... From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Thu Aug 2 07:01:54 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:01:54 -0500 Subject: N.H. town mounts tax revolt Message-ID: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/tax.revolt.ap/index.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 2 09:03:09 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:03:09 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: <003901c11adf$e7ea5d90$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010802090309.008ca2b0@pop.sprynet.com> At 04:15 PM 8/1/01 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote: > >> Destroying sensitive data is part of doing the job right, in >> a professional, 'best practice' manner. > >Again, it's going to be an uphill battle to get a jury of people too stupid to >get out of jury duty to believe that. You might think about a side job >offering expert testimony services for this exact thing. "You mean to tell the court that you not only shred old documents, you *use a cross-cut* shredder too? What, a regular shredder isn't good enough? Obviously you were hiding something" ....... "PCBs may be destroyed by hacking with a fire ax and scattering the pieces." --IMPLEMENT A COMSEC EMERGENCY PLAN, US ARMY From schear at lvcm.com Thu Aug 2 09:05:20 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:05:20 -0700 Subject: Stegotext in usenet as offsite backup In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010801232403.0383d5e0@idiom.com> References: <3B66809A.6842.48A7CE7@localhost> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010802090143.0416eac0@pop3.lvcm.com> At 01:31 AM 8/2/2001 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 11:52 AM 07/31/2001 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >>It would be handy, from my point of view, to use usenet as >>an "offsite backup" solution -- posting encrypted source >>for work-in-progress on binary newsgroups so I could just >>go back and nab it out of the archives if I ever have a >>disk crash or in case the computer gets stolen. > >"Your message may cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars." >Usenet may be effective for Blacknet and samizdat and >unreliable storage of critical secrets where the Fedz won't >stomp them all out, but it doesn't scale well for normal backups. >You can use one of those "100megsfree.com" sites, or buy storage, >and use some anonymizer to stash your stuff there. >The real advantage of using Usenet as opposed to a non-broadcast medium >is that it's much harder for eavesdroppers to find the people reading it >when they're targeting the writer, so you can use a Blacknet service anywhere; >if that's not relevant, then don't bother. Freenet and Mojo Nation are much better bets. Because of the inherent crypto used for transport and the manner in which the data is distributed and stored, plus the ability to innocuously add your crypto on top, they make good potential data havens. steve From schear at lvcm.com Thu Aug 2 09:06:26 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:06:26 -0700 Subject: Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010801231932.021b3aa0@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010802090545.04169420@pop3.lvcm.com> At 01:40 AM 8/2/2001 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >It would be worth it to go just for the purpose of asking what they were >going to do about cereal killers. You mean those who put ketchup on their corn flakes ;-) steve From declan at well.com Thu Aug 2 06:11:45 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:11:45 -0400 Subject: biochemwomdterror in DC (closed hearing today) Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010802091128.021095c0@mail.well.com> HOUSE SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE Terrorist Threats Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security meeting on the terrorist threat of bioweapons, chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear. Location: H-405, U.S. Capitol. 10 a.m. Contact: 202-225-4121 http://www.house.gov/select **NEW/CLOSED** From bob at black.org Thu Aug 2 09:12:42 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:12:42 -0700 Subject: reverse panopticon: faces of authority project (was Re: *Protecting* civil liberties with facial recognition) Message-ID: <3B697BFA.93F082FB@black.org> At 07:20 AM 8/2/01 -0700, Brewster Kahle wrote: >There do happen to be a large collection (very large) of web images in a free-to-use library, called the Internet Archive... > >In fact, these images are on a parallel supercomputer made up of hundreds of linux boxes, so if someone writes the software to do this detection we could run it on the images in the collection. > >Let me know how a public library can help. > >-brewster Mapping the faces to the meatspace occupations will be the hard part. You might start with the Kirkland, Washington list of police truenames... From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Thu Aug 2 07:27:22 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:27:22 -0500 Subject: Adversaries would find other attack methods, game theory shows Message-ID: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010802080823.htm James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 2 06:39:07 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:39:07 -0400 Subject: WHERE IS DILDO? was: Laws of mathematics, not of men Message-ID: > Sandy Sandfort[SMTP:sandfort at mindspring.com] wrote: > > Dildo blathered: > > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Alan Olsen wrote: > > ... > > > "The first rule of not being seen > > > is ''Don't stand up''." > > > > That should be 'Don't stand out'. > > If everyone else is standing up > > you're toast. > > Jimbo is obviously still having trouble understanding and using metaphors. > > S a n d y > Actually, Jim and Sandy are both missing the root reference, a Monty Python sketch entitled "How not to be seen". Of course, 'not standing up' is shown to be ineffective, since the narrator procedes to blow up every object behind which the subject may be 'not standing up'. Peter From viralmarketing1 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 09:48:42 2001 From: viralmarketing1 at yahoo.com (Net Marketing) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:48:42 -0700 Subject: What's the buzz about viral marketing? [adv] Message-ID: <200108021648.JAA26615@ecotone.toad.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4568 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amaha at vsnl.net Thu Aug 2 08:05:06 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:05:06 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108021505.f72F56Z12470@ak47.algebra.com> Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever. --Napoleon Bonaparte ********************************************************************************** Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period of 60 days+. We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will make your life peaceful,successful & happy in a way you had never imagined before. If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy From frissell at panix.com Thu Aug 2 07:16:06 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 10:16:06 -0400 Subject: Empire of the Air Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010801171210.035271f0@brillig.panix.com> I'm grateful to Michael Hardt, co-author with Antonio Negri, of the social satire "Empire" for reminding me of a *very* inconvenient fact that the foes of Media Monopoly hope we'll forget. On the WBUR (Boston) program "The Connection" after talking about the initial promise of radio as a liberating medium he said: "The way radio and television have developed have been ways in which democratic voices have been excluded systematically and have been controlled by the forces of capital -- the ones who own these media." See: http://www.theconnection.org/archive/2001/07/0723a.shtml Listen: http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/connection/audio/2001/07/con_0723a.rm (quote appears just after 16:00). What he hopes the rest of the world will forget and Americans will never know is that from the dawn of broadcasting until the last few years almost all of the Earth's radio and television were owned and operated by the various national governments. Read the history of the pirate radio ship Radio Caroline if you want to see the lengths to which governments went to secure their monopoly: http://www.radiocaroline.co.uk/history/index.htm With all of the different channels into our brains (many of which didn't exist 25 years ago), it is hard to argue that electronic media is less competitive than it was when most of it was controlled by governments. DCF ---- When I was growing up, three white guys in NYC determined everything 90% of Americans saw on TV. Most towns had no more than two newspapers. Radio was exclusively Top 40 format. Yet, today, with 6 broadcast networks, 1000 newspapers available online, netcasting costing $39.95/month, and 5 Gigs of webpages extant, those commentators who themselves favor monopoly *government* complain that a Media Monopoly exists. There are more media outlets than ever. From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 2 07:18:35 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:18:35 -0400 Subject: Do not taunt happy-fun-court. Message-ID: > ---------- > From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] > > > At some point I will probably begin keeping logs that expire after a > > period of several hours, so that I can identify and block spammers. I'm > > interested in your thoughts on this, Uni. Is the defense "I never retain > > logs longer than 2 hours; they are automatically deleted out of disk > space > > considerations" as string as the first one? (This is how many remailers > > are configured. But even if the remailers all kept logs, if users are > > chaining their messages through multiple remailers, anonymity should > still > > be preserved.) > > See my (huge) posting on this, but I would suspect that this isn't great. > Were I operating one, which I am admittedly not, I'd want there to be no > data > of evidentiary value ever hitting my memory or media. To some degree > that's > not possible. In the alternative, actually _disabling_ logging is the > best > policy, in my view. The evidence never existed in the first place then. > It > suddenly becomes a challenge to show some kind of conspiracy on your part > since the actual spoliation claim is harder to make. Showing conspiracy > for > anything with respect to either probably starts hard and gets marginally > less > hard in this order: > > a) A middle remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) > about > original sender, content or recipient. [...] > b) A back end remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) > about > content or original sender. [...] > c) A front end remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) > about content or recipient. [...] > d) A "one hop" remailer. [...] You're forgetting e) A remailer which silently ignores (and deletes) all mail which is not still encrypted after the remailer's decryption key is applied. (Complaints from Choate that I don't show how to distinguish encrypted vs cleartext mail with 100% accuracy will be silently ignored (and deleted).) This protects the remailer operator from: (1) having any knowledge of the ultimate destination of the mail, since there is a good possibility that the next email address is just another remailer. (2) having any knowledge of the content of the email, since it is still encrypted. Thus, a remailer operator in Afghanistan doesn't knowingly pass on copies of 'The Satanic Verses'. (3) passing on 99.9999% of spam. Spammers do not use encrypted mail - it requires far too much per-message processing, in terms of obtaining public keys, constructing nested encrypted messages, etc. And yes, BU's point about not generating logs at all is well taken - I've not looked at remailer software, but commenting out a few lines should take care of this. If I ran one, I might consider keeping aggregate data (# of messages/week, MB/week), but I can't see anything useful I'd do with individual message data. This ties into the discussion about headless, disposable remailers - many of the discussed designs have no mass storage to speak of, so of course they would not keep logs. Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 2 07:18:35 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:18:35 -0400 Subject: Do not taunt happy-fun-court. Message-ID: > ---------- > From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] > > > At some point I will probably begin keeping logs that expire after a > > period of several hours, so that I can identify and block spammers. I'm > > interested in your thoughts on this, Uni. Is the defense "I never retain > > logs longer than 2 hours; they are automatically deleted out of disk > space > > considerations" as string as the first one? (This is how many remailers > > are configured. But even if the remailers all kept logs, if users are > > chaining their messages through multiple remailers, anonymity should > still > > be preserved.) > > See my (huge) posting on this, but I would suspect that this isn't great. > Were I operating one, which I am admittedly not, I'd want there to be no > data > of evidentiary value ever hitting my memory or media. To some degree > that's > not possible. In the alternative, actually _disabling_ logging is the > best > policy, in my view. The evidence never existed in the first place then. > It > suddenly becomes a challenge to show some kind of conspiracy on your part > since the actual spoliation claim is harder to make. Showing conspiracy > for > anything with respect to either probably starts hard and gets marginally > less > hard in this order: > > a) A middle remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) > about > original sender, content or recipient. [...] > b) A back end remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) > about > content or original sender. [...] > c) A front end remailer in a multiple chain that knows nothing (little) > about content or recipient. [...] > d) A "one hop" remailer. [...] You're forgetting e) A remailer which silently ignores (and deletes) all mail which is not still encrypted after the remailer's decryption key is applied. (Complaints from Choate that I don't show how to distinguish encrypted vs cleartext mail with 100% accuracy will be silently ignored (and deleted).) This protects the remailer operator from: (1) having any knowledge of the ultimate destination of the mail, since there is a good possibility that the next email address is just another remailer. (2) having any knowledge of the content of the email, since it is still encrypted. Thus, a remailer operator in Afghanistan doesn't knowingly pass on copies of 'The Satanic Verses'. (3) passing on 99.9999% of spam. Spammers do not use encrypted mail - it requires far too much per-message processing, in terms of obtaining public keys, constructing nested encrypted messages, etc. And yes, BU's point about not generating logs at all is well taken - I've not looked at remailer software, but commenting out a few lines should take care of this. If I ran one, I might consider keeping aggregate data (# of messages/week, MB/week), but I can't see anything useful I'd do with individual message data. This ties into the discussion about headless, disposable remailers - many of the discussed designs have no mass storage to speak of, so of course they would not keep logs. Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 2 07:25:19 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:25:19 -0400 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. Message-ID: BU writes: Peter Trei writes: > > You may be a lawyer, but I'm a cryptographic software engineer. > > > > Cleansing disks and memory of keys and plaintext isn't done > > to prevent some hypothetical court from looking at evidence; > > there are good, legally unremarkable reasons to do so, which > > are regarded as good hygiene and 'best practice' in the > > industry. > > Unfortunately, that conduct is going to be assessed by some old guy who > was > once a lawyer, and who I highly doubt was ever a cryptographic software > engineer. (The latter actually has to think hard on a regular basis). > > [Lots of good stuff elided for brevity] > > > Destroying sensitive data is part of doing the job right, in > > a professional, 'best practice' manner. > > Again, it's going to be an uphill battle to get a jury of people too > stupid to > get out of jury duty to believe that. You might think about a side job > offering expert testimony services for this exact thing. > Judges have to take testimony on subjects they know little about all the time. Yes, I'd consider being an EW (but generally not for free). I'd have no problem showing that zeroisation is a standard practice - in fact, it's mandated by some government standards for protecting classified data. Peter Trei From bill.stewart at pobox.com Thu Aug 2 10:26:55 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 10:26:55 -0700 Subject: Just because it is made public doesn't mean it's declassified In-Reply-To: <200108021522.IAA09055@toad.com> References: <3B696556.8124B382@hq.org> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010802090558.03843720@idiom.com> At 08:22 AM 08/02/2001 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: >Just because it is public DOES mean it's declassified. There are >Supreme Court cases on this. If the government can recover all the >copies, then it can REclassify it. But if it can't, then the document >is not classified. It's not that straightforward, because Postol has a security clearance, so he's under more restrictions than somebody who doesn't. If he obtained the information entirely from already-public sources, as opposed to obtaining documents with classification markings that don't also have declassification markings on them, he should be safe from prosecution, but that doesn't mean they can't pop his security clearance for it. From jen11779 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 10:51:14 2001 From: jen11779 at yahoo.com (Ms Jen M) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: quadratic sieve Message-ID: <20010802175114.75712.qmail@web13503.mail.yahoo.com> hi! i'm working on a project and i need help. my project is dealing with cryptograpghy and the different sieves that are used. as of right now i am trying to understand the quadratic sieve. i have been looking at different sites dealing with this seive, but the info there is pretty hard to understand. they say it almost as if you know what they are talking about, and i don't. the info they have is not detailed at all. so can you help me? from- jenn __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From steve48329 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 11:07:14 2001 From: steve48329 at yahoo.com (Steve N) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: blue electron Message-ID: <20010802180714.10198.qmail@web12306.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Cypherpunks What happened to Blue Electron Where can I find Buck Naked ?? Any info appreciated Thanks Steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Thu Aug 2 11:34:57 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Pi Message-ID: <200108021834.f72IYvk27318@artifact.psychedelic.net> Interesting article recently posted on the Nature Web site about the normality of Pi. http://www.nature.com/nsu/010802/010802-9.html "David Bailey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and Richard Crandall of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, present evidence that pi's decimal expansion contains every string of whole numbers. They also suggest that all strings of the same length appear in pi with the same frequency: 87,435 appears as often as 30,752, and 451 as often as 862, a property known as normality." Of cryptographic interest. "While there may be no cosmic message lurking in pi's digits, if they are random they could be used to encrypt other messages as follows: "Convert a message into zeros and ones, choose a string of digits somewhere in the decimal expansion of pi, and encode the message by adding the digits of pi to the digits of the message string, one after another. Only a person who knows the chosen starting point in pi's expansion will be able to decode the message." While there's presently no known formula which generates decimal digits of Pi starting from a particular point, there's a clever formula which can be used to generate HEX digits of Pi starting from anywhere, which Bailey et al discovered in 1996, using the PSLQ linear relation algorithm. If you sum the following series for k=0 to k=infinity, its limit is Pi. 1/16^k[4/(8k+1) - 2/(8k+4) - 1/(8k+5) - 1/(8k+6)] (Exercise: Prove this series sums to Pi) Since this is an expression for Pi in inverse powers of 16, it is easy to multiply this series by 16^d and take the fractional part, evaluating terms where d>k by modular exponentiation, and evaluating a couple of terms where d Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Steve Schear wrote: > At 01:40 AM 8/2/2001 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: > >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > >It would be worth it to go just for the purpose of asking what they were > >going to do about cereal killers. > > You mean those who put ketchup on their corn flakes ;-) Actually I had this image of Microsoft getting involved in the hearings and complaining about Open Source Cereal. Now I have this image of "what if O'Reilly made cereal". ("These sendmail flakes are REALLY tough!" "Well you don't want to think about the "Mastering Regular Expression Pops!") Remember: Coffee *before* posting! 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. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman From paulhmerrill at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 12:29:33 2001 From: paulhmerrill at yahoo.com (Paul Merrill) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Just because it is made public doesn't mean it's declassified In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010802090558.03843720@idiom.com> Message-ID: <20010802192933.31959.qmail@web12006.mail.yahoo.com> Even if all sources were unclassified, there still looms Classification by Aggregation. (An NSA phone number is Unclass; the NSA phone Book is Confidential.) Ultimately, the pulled Clearance/loss of contract is the Tall Peg. PHM --- Bill Stewart wrote: > > At 08:22 AM 08/02/2001 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: > >Just because it is public DOES mean it's > declassified. There are > >Supreme Court cases on this. If the government can > recover all the > >copies, then it can REclassify it. But if it > can't, then the document > >is not classified. > > It's not that straightforward, because Postol has a > security clearance, > so he's under more restrictions than somebody who > doesn't. > > If he obtained the information entirely from > already-public sources, > as opposed to obtaining documents with > classification markings > that don't also have declassification markings on > them, > he should be safe from prosecution, but that doesn't > mean they > can't pop his security clearance for it. > > > > ===== Paul H. Merrill, MCNE, MCSE+I, CISSP * PaulMerrill at ACM.Org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From incredibleincome2001 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 13:11:55 2001 From: incredibleincome2001 at yahoo.com (Make More Money Now) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:11:55 Subject: Earn $1,000 on EVERY $89 Sale!!! Message-ID: <200108022305.f72N5iJ19890@rigel.cyberpass.net> -------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: This one-time message is in response to your online ad. You are NOT on a mailing list and you will NOT receive any more messages. Please send more details about your ad/offer. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Receive $1,000 Commission on a $89 Sale!! DID YOU MAKE $5,000 LAST MONTH? IF NOT, YOU NEED TO JOIN US TODAY! Imagine being able to market the hottest consumer savings package in America today! Imagine earning up to $1,000 each and every time someone joins for $89 DOWN! Imagine being plugged into a proven system that puts your entire business on auto-pilot and have you earning $3,000 every week! IT'S TRUE! You can be in business for $89 DOWN! And you can easily make $3,000 your very first week... and we'll show you how! Your business will literally explode overnight when you join our team and plug into our exclusive marketing system! For more INFO call me at 877-783-3471 or reply to IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com with in the subject line or JUST CLICK: mailto:IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com?subject=Send__INFO 100% FINANCING - 100% CASH MACHINE EVERYBODY IS A PROSPECT - 98% APPROVED EARN $1,000 ON EVERY A THROUGH IF CREDIT SALE! EARN $1,000 ON EACH AND EVERY SALE TO INFINITY! We provide you with all the tools and marketing resources you will every need. The only thing you need to do is join our team and plug into our proven system for success today! ~~~~~~~~~~~ For more INFO call me at 877-783-3471 or reply to IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com with in the subject line or JUST CLICK: mailto:IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com?subject=Send__INFO Testimonies: This program is so easy, 'with your system I have made 13 sales first week'. That's $13000' this is the best program I've done and I've done them all! Richard SO. Memphis, TN I did it all with my computer! People sign up like crazy! First I said, ok, I am financially totally down, I need to give this one a try. But after two weeks I am already out of dept! Oh god, I did not expect that! And I am not a sales person and I did it! I am so excited, thank you Richard and Mary! Randy SO. Los Angeles, CA I am SPEECHLESS! With your FREE leads, and FREE unsecured Visa MC, I was able to advertise free & pay for faxes that got my phone ringing off the hook! I think I'll have 20 sales this month!!! I haven't even begun to download all the free software to make even more MONEY' Thanks guys Randy SO. Detroit MI I was in my chiropractor's office when the secretary was about to throw out a fax that they had just received. The fax was similar to this email and caught my eye. I did exactly what it told me to do (a fax blast) and in my second day I made $6,000. No hard selling, no hustling my friends, just friendly people looking at a great opportunity and wanting in. Even if it took me a month to make an extra $5,000 I would have been happy, but $6,000 in my second day, wow! I'm excited. Dave W. Newport Beach, CA If you have been looking for something that is not MLM, is turnkey and very easy to do, then join us now, This is the MOST EXPLOSIVE income opportunity we have ever seen. Sign up 3 people & earn $3,000! Sign up 10 people & earn $10,000...how much do you want? This is the easiest sale you will EVER make! GET STARTED WITH $89 DOWN + START EARNING $1,000 CHECKS YOUR FIRST MONTH! IMPORTANT: To remove please click: mailto:IncredibleIncome2001 at yahoo.com?subject=remove ========================================================= This message is in full compliance with UP.SO. Federal requirements for commercial email under bill SO.1618 Title loll, Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(CO) passed by the 105th UP.SO. Congress and cannot be considered SPAM since it includes a remove mechanism. From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 2 13:23:40 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:23:40 -0700 Subject: Another Part of the Game ( or not ) Message-ID: <3B69B6CC.4859E0CC@lsil.com> Maybe it doesn't matter if the missile defense system that is ultimately deployed ( or not ) works ( or not ) as long as many billions are spent in the process. Charging straight to the techie issues like bulls for the red cape and missing the proud, smiling matador - Ole! From alan at clueserver.org Thu Aug 2 13:37:58 2001 From: alan at clueserver.org (Alan Olsen) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Pi In-Reply-To: <200108021834.f72IYvk27318@artifact.psychedelic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote: > Interesting article recently posted on the Nature Web site about the > normality of Pi. > > http://www.nature.com/nsu/010802/010802-9.html > > "David Bailey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and > Richard Crandall of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, present evidence > that pi's decimal expansion contains every string of whole numbers. They > also suggest that all strings of the same length appear in pi with the > same frequency: 87,435 appears as often as 30,752, and 451 as often as > 862, a property known as normality." Note that Reed College is known to be one of the best sources of hallucinigens locally. I wonder where "10000" or "99999" occurs in Pi? 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. "All power is derived from the barrel of a gnu." - Mao Tse Stallman From 0141215901 at netcabo.pt Thu Aug 2 05:38:40 2001 From: 0141215901 at netcabo.pt (Trade Atlantic I.B.C.) Date: 2 Aug 2001 13:38:40 +0100 Subject: ONLINE FREE MESSAGE BOARDS / Worldwide Import-Export Offers & Demands Message-ID: <067e01c11b51$85793a60$9c1416d5@netcabo.pt> Please contact: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/default.htm Or if you want to develop uour know-how and participate in a multi million dollars business,several updated books are available at: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id192.htm or http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id194.htm Thank You. From 0141215901 at netcabo.pt Thu Aug 2 05:38:40 2001 From: 0141215901 at netcabo.pt (Trade Atlantic I.B.C.) Date: 2 Aug 2001 13:38:40 +0100 Subject: ONLINE FREE MESSAGE BOARDS / Worldwide Import-Export Offers & Demands Message-ID: <067d01c11b51$85500780$9c1416d5@netcabo.pt> Please contact: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/default.htm Or if you want to develop uour know-how and participate in a multi million dollars business,several updated books are available at: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id192.htm or http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id194.htm Thank You. From 0141215901 at netcabo.pt Thu Aug 2 05:38:40 2001 From: 0141215901 at netcabo.pt (Trade Atlantic I.B.C.) Date: 2 Aug 2001 13:38:40 +0100 Subject: ONLINE FREE MESSAGE BOARDS / Worldwide Import-Export Offers & Demands Message-ID: <067f01c11b51$85a26d40$9c1416d5@netcabo.pt> Please contact: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/default.htm Or if you want to develop uour know-how and participate in a multi million dollars business,several updated books are available at: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id192.htm or http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id194.htm Thank You. From 0141215901 at netcabo.pt Thu Aug 2 05:38:40 2001 From: 0141215901 at netcabo.pt (Trade Atlantic I.B.C.) Date: 2 Aug 2001 13:38:40 +0100 Subject: ONLINE FREE MESSAGE BOARDS / Worldwide Import-Export Offers & Demands Message-ID: <068001c11b51$85c3ff00$9c1416d5@netcabo.pt> Please contact: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/default.htm Or if you want to develop uour know-how and participate in a multi million dollars business,several updated books are available at: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id192.htm or http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id194.htm Thank You. From 0141215901 at netcabo.pt Thu Aug 2 05:38:40 2001 From: 0141215901 at netcabo.pt (Trade Atlantic I.B.C.) Date: 2 Aug 2001 13:38:40 +0100 Subject: ONLINE FREE MESSAGE BOARDS / Worldwide Import-Export Offers & Demands Message-ID: <067c01c11b51$853616e0$9c1416d5@netcabo.pt> Please contact: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/default.htm Or if you want to develop uour know-how and participate in a multi million dollars business,several updated books are available at: http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id192.htm or http://pwp.netcabo.pt/0141215901/id194.htm Thank You. From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Thu Aug 2 14:16:51 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Pi In-Reply-To: from "Phillip H. Zakas" at Aug 02, 2001 04:05:35 PM Message-ID: <200108022116.f72LGpK27584@artifact.psychedelic.net> Phillip H. Zakas wrote: > this is truly interesting...do you have a link to the original 1996 > paper? do you know if anyone has incorporated this into a program? David Bailey has a brief explanation of the Pi digit algorithm on his Web page at NERSC... http://hpcf.nersc.gov/~dhbailey/pi-alg Also check out "Recognizing Numerical Constants" by David H. Bailey and Simon Plouffe at... http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/organics/papers/bailey/paper/html/paper.html and click on the link titled "Formulas for Pi and Related Constants." More interesting stuff at... http://www.multimania.com/bgourevitch/ref/ottawaPi.pdf Where plouffe discusses some more of the math and reveals the 400 billionth binary digit of Pi. Lots more if you use a search engine. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From rroberts at ishopsecure.com Thu Aug 2 14:18:29 2001 From: rroberts at ishopsecure.com (rroberts at ishopsecure.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:18:29 -0700 Subject: Elimination of online fraud Message-ID: <200108022118.OAA27302@ecotone.toad.com> Dear sirs/madam: I tried calling today but was unable to reach your corporate offices. The reason I was calling is that we have a solution that will prevent and eliminate all online credit card/identification fraud completely to eliminate expensive chargebacks and lost sales, which is one hundred percent guaranteed. I would like to reach the appropriate person in charge of this area of your business. We are partners with both Experian, Equifax and Visa are a premier providers of fraud protection for ecommerce merchants. The fraud protection is already built into the Miva shopping cart and can be quickly implemented without disrupting your day to day operations. Please kindly respond with the appropriate contact. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Rob Roberts VP of Fraud Prevention iShopSecure, Inc. 3335 N. University Drive Davie, FL 33024 rroberts at ishopsecure.com Ph: 954-438-2711 Fax: 954-438-2712 Toll Free: 888-533-5300 www.Transact-Secure.net From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 2 11:18:36 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Adversaries Would Find Other Attack Methods, Game Theory Shows Message-ID: Interesting article, actually. I think game theory has the potential to be a powerful tool for any cypherpunk to have in his or her mental arsenal, (so to speak.) For those of you who haven't been introduced to game theory, how it works, and what it's used for, here's a modified excerpt from an essay outlining the basics... Game theory can be described as the study of interactive decision making. Although game theory is relevant to parlor games such as poker or bridge, most research in game theory focuses on how groups of people interact. There are two main branches of game theory: cooperative and noncooperative game theory. Noncooperative game theory deals largely with how intelligent individuals interact with one another in an effort to achieve their own goals. Decision theory can be viewed as a theory of one person games, or a game of a single player against nature. The focus is on preferences and the formation of beliefs. The most widely used form of decision theory argues that preferences among risky alternatives can be described by the maximization the expected value of a numerical utility function, where utility may depend on a number of things, but in situations of interest to economists often depends on money income. Probability theory is heavily used in order to represent the uncertainty of outcomes, and Bayes Law is frequently used to model the way in which new information is used to revise beliefs. Decision theory is often used in the form of decision analysis, which shows how best to acquire information before making a decision. General equilibrium theory can be viewed as a specialized branch of game theory that deals with trade and production, and typically with a relatively large number of individual consumers and producers. It is widely used in the macroeconomic analysis of broad based economic policies such as monetary or tax policy, in finance to analyze stock markets, to study interest and exchange rates and other prices. In recent years, political economy has emerged as a combination of general equilibrium theory and game theory in which the private sector of the economy is modeled by general equilibrium theory, while voting behavior and the incentive of governments is analyzed using game theory. Issues studied include tax policy, trade policy, and the role of international trade agreements such as the European Union. Mechanism design theory differs from game theory in that game theory takes the rules of the game as given, while mechanism design theory asks about the consequences of different types of rules. Naturally this relies heavily on game theory. Questions addressed by mechanism design theory include the design of compensation and wage agreements that effectively spread risk while maintaining incentives, and the design of auctions to maximize revenue, or achieve other goals. An Instructive Example One way to describe a game is by listing the players (or individuals) participating in the game, and for each player, listing the alternative choices (called actions or strategies) available to that player. In the case of a two-player game, the actions of the first player form the rows, and the actions of the second player the columns, of a matrix. The entries in the matrix are two numbers representing the utility or payoff to the first and second player respectively. A very famous game is the Prisoner's Dilemma game. In this game the two players are partners in a crime who have been captured by the police. Each suspect is placed in a separate cell, and offered the opportunity to confess to the crime. The game can be represented by the following matrix of payoffs: not confess confess not confess 5,5 0,10 confess 10,0 1,1 Note that higher numbers are better (more utility). If neither suspect confesses, they go free, and split the proceeds of their crime which we represent by 5 units of utility for each suspect. However, if one prisoner confesses and the other does not, the prisoner who confesses testifies against the other in exchange for going free and gets the entire 10 units of utility, while the prisoner who did not confess goes to prison and gets nothing. If both prisoners confess, then both are given a reduced term, but both are convicted, which we represent by giving each 1 unit of utility: better than having the other prisoner confess, but not so good as going free. This game has fascinated game theorists for a variety of reasons. First, it is a simple representation of a variety of important situations. For example, instead of confess/not confess we could label the strategies "contribute to the common good" or "behave selfishly." This captures a variety of situations economists describe as public goods problems. An example is the construction of a bridge. It is best for everyone if the bridge is built, but best for each individual if someone else builds the bridge. This is sometimes refered to in economics as an externality. Similarly this game could describe the alternative of two firms competing in the same market, and instead of confess/not confess we could label the strategies "set a high price" and "set a low price." Naturally is is best for both firms if they both set high prices, but best for each individual firm to set a low price while the opposition sets a high price. A second feature of this game, is that it is self-evident how an intelligent individual should behave. No matter what a suspect believes his partner is going to do, is is always best to confess. If the partner in the other cell is not confessing, it is possible to get 10 instead of 5. If the partner in the other cell is confessing, it is possible to get 1 instead of 0. Yet the pursuit of individually sensible behavior results in each player getting only 1 unit of utility, much less than the 5 units each that they would get if neither confessed. This conflict between the pursuit of individual goals and the common good is at the heart of many game theoretic problems. A third feature of this game is that it changes in a very significant way if the game is repeated, or if the players will interact with each other again in the future. Suppose for example that after this game is over, and the suspects either are freed or are released from jail they will commit another crime and the game will be played again. In this case in the first period the suspects may reason that they should not confess because if they do not their partner will not confess in the second game. Strictly speaking, this conclusion is not valid, since in the second game both suspects will confess no matter what happened in the first game. However, repetition opens up the possibility of being rewarded or punished in the future for current behavior, and game theorists have provided a number of theories to explain the obvious intuition that if the game is repeated often enough, the suspects ought to cooperate. One of the most entertaining intro books is "The Compleat Strategist: Being a Primer on the Theory of Games of Strategy", (J.D. Williams, McGraw-Hill, New York 1966.) David Levine recommends "Thinking Strategically" by A. Dixit and B. Nalebuff (Norton, 1991) as good general reading. If you're interested in getting deeper into the subject you should try Game Theory with Economic Applications by H. Bierman and L. Fernandez (Addison-Wesley, 1993). The next step up is the graduate level text Game Theory by D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole from MIT Press. There are also two other advanced textbooks worth taking a look at: "Fun and Games: A Text on Game Theory by K. Binmore" (D.C. Heath, 1992), a very focused and mathematical treatment... --------------------- "Golden Age" History --------------------- 1944 "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern is published. As well as expounding two-person zero sum theory this book is the seminal work in areas of game theory such as the notion of a cooperative game, with transferable utility (TU), its coalitional form and its von Neumann-Morgenstern stable sets. It was also the account of axiomatic utility theory given here that led to its wide spread adoption within economics. 1945 Herbert Simon writes the first review of von Neumann-Morgenstern. 1946 The first entirely algebraic proof of the minimax theorem is due to L. H. Loomis's,On a Theorem of von Neumann, paper. 1950 Contributions to the Theory of Games I, H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker eds., published. 1950 In January 1950 Melvin Dresher and Merrill Flood carry out, at the Rand Corporation, the experiment which introduced the game now known as the Prisoner's Dilemma. The famous story associated with this game is due to A. W. Tucker, A Two-Person Dilemma, (memo, Stanford University). Howard Raiffa independently conducted, unpublished, experiments with the Prisoner's Dilemma. 1950-53 In four papers between 1950 and 1953 John Nash made seminal contributions to both non-cooperative game theory and to bargaining theory. In two papers, "Equilibrium Points in N- Person Games" (1950) and "Non-cooperative Games" (1951), Nash proved the existence of a strategic equilibrium for non- cooperative games - the Nash equilibrium - and proposed the"Nash program", in which he suggested approaching the study of cooperative games via their reduction to non-cooperative form. In his two papers on bargaining theory, The Bargaining Problem (1950) and Two-Person Cooperative Games (1953), he founded axiomatic bargaining theory, proved the existence of the Nash bargaining solution and provided the first execution of the Nash program. 1951 George W. Brown described and discussed a simple iterative method for approximating solutions of discrete zero-sum games in his paper Iterative Solutions of Games by Fictitious Play. 1952 The first textbook on game theory: John Charles C. McKinsey, "Introduction to the Theory of Games". 1952 Merrill Flood's report, (Rand Corporation research memorandum, Some Experimental Games, RM-789, June), on the 1950 Dresher/Flood experiments appears. 1952 The Ford Foundation and the University of Michigan sponsor a seminar on the"Design of Experiments in Decision Processes" in Santa Monica.This was the first experimental economics/ experimental game theory conference. 1952-53 The notion of the Core as a general solution concept was developed by L. S. Shapley (Rand Corporation research memorandum, Notes on the N-Person Game III: Some Variants of the von-Neumann-Morgenstern Definition of Solution, RM- 817, 1952) and D.B. Gillies (Some Theorems on N-Person Games, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, 1953). The core is the set of allocations that cannot be improved upon by any coalition. 1953 Lloyd Shapley in his paper A" Value for N-Person Games" characterised, by a set of axioms, a solution concept that associates with each coalitional game,v, a unique out- come, v. This solution in now known as the Shapley Value. 1953 Lloyd Shapley's paper "Stochastic Games" showed that for the strictly competitive case, with future payoff discounted at a fixed rate, such games are determined and that they have optimal strategies that depend only on the game being played, not on the history or even on the date, i.e.: the strategies are stationary. 1953 Extensive form games allow the modeller to specify the exact order in which players have to make their decisions and to formulate the assumptions about the information possessed by the players in all stages of the game. H. W. Kuhn's paper, "Extensive Games and the Problem of Information" includes the formulation of extensive form games which is currently used, and also some basic theorems pertaining to this class of games. 1953 "Contributions to the Theory of Games II," H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker eds., published. 1954 One of the earliest applications of game theory to political science is L. S. Shapley and M. Shubik with their paper "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System." They use the Shapley value to determine the power of the members of the UN Security Council. 1954-55 Differential Games were developed by Rufus Isaacs in the early 1950s. They grew out of the problem of forming and solving military pursuit games. The first publications in the area were Rand Corporation research memoranda, by Isaacs, RM-1391 (30 November 1954), RM-1399 (30 November 1954), RM-1411 (21 December 1954) and RM-1486 (25 March 1955) all entitled, in part, Differential Games. 1955 One of the first applications of game theory to philosophy is R. B. Braithwaite's "Theory of Games as a Tool for the Moral Philosopher." 1957 "Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey" by Robert Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa published. 1957 Contributions to the Theory of Games III, M. A.Dresher, A. W. Tucker and P. Wolfe eds., published. 1959 The notion of a Strong Equilibrium was introduced by R. J. Aumann in the paper Acceptable Points in General Cooperative N-Person Games. 1959 The relationship between Edgeworth's idea of the contract curve and the core was pointed out by Martin Shubik in his paper Edgeworth Market Games. One limitation with this paper is that Shubik worked within the confines of TU games whereas Edgeworth's idea is more appropriately modelled as an NTU game. 1959 Contributions to the Theory of Games IV, A. W.Tucker and R. D. Luce eds., published. 1959 Publication of Martin Shubik's "Strategy and Market Structure: Competition, Oligopoly, and the Theory of Games". This was one of the first books to take an explicitly non-cooperative game theoretic approach to modelling oligopoly. It also contains an early statement of the Folk Theorem. Late 50's Near the end of this decade came the first studies of repeated games. The main result to appear at this time was the Folk Theorem. This states that the equilibrium outcomes in an infinitely repeated game coincide with the feasible and strongly individually rational outcomes of the one-shot game on which it is based. Authorship of the theorem is obscure. From pgoldman at bellatlantic.net Thu Aug 2 12:27:46 2001 From: pgoldman at bellatlantic.net (pgoldman at bellatlantic.net) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 14:27:46 -0500 Subject: igfarben Message-ID: <3B69A9B2.A0D37A14@bellatlantic.net> what about this mad man corporation? From rsw at MIT.EDU Thu Aug 2 11:33:13 2001 From: rsw at MIT.EDU (Riad S. Wahby) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:33:13 -0400 Subject: Just because it is made public doesn't mean it's declassified In-Reply-To: <3B696556.8124B382@hq.org>; from alqaeda@hq.org on Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 07:36:06AM -0700 References: <3B696556.8124B382@hq.org> Message-ID: <20010802143313.A8813@positron.mit.edu> Alfred Qaeda wrote: > M.I.T. Physicist Says Pentagon Is > Trying to Silence Him > by James Dao Here is the letter in question. I'm sending it at least as much to put it in the inet-one archives as I am for general interest :-) If anyone wants the HTML version or the attachments, see http://positron.mit.edu/postol/ ___________________________________________________________________________ SECURITY STUDIES PROGRAM Massachusetts Institute of Technology 292 Main Street (E38-603) Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 May 11, 2000 Mr. John Podesta White House Chief of Staff The White House First Floor, West Wing Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. Podesta: I am writing to alert you to information that is of profound importance to President Clintons impending decision on whether to deploy the currently under development National Missile Defense system. I have obtained and analyzed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organizations (BMDOs) own published data from the Integrated Flight Test 1A (IFT-1A) and have discovered that the BMDOs own data shows that the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) will be defeated by the simplest of balloon decoys. I also have documentation that shows that the BMDO in coordination with its contractors attempted to hide this fact by tampering with both the data and analysis from the IFT-1A experiment. In addition, it appears that the BMDO modified the configuration of the IFT-2, 3, and 4 follow-on flight tests to hide the program-stopping facts revealed in the IFT-1A. The documentation and analysis that supports my claims are attached to this letter as Attachments A through D. In the remainder of this letter I will briefly summarize the findings documented in the four attachments. Attachments A and B explain how the BMDOs own data from the IFT-1A test shows that the BMDO falsely represented the results of the IFT-1A test as showing that an Exotamospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) can tell warheads from simple balloon decoys. It is easy to understand this result from a simple explanation of how the EKV works (see Attachments A and B for further details). The EKV sees both decoys and warheads as unresolved points of light, and it attempts to find warheads by examining how each point of light fluctuates in time. The intensity of the signal from each potentially lethal object depends on its size, temperature, surface materials and spatial orientation, and the fluctuation in the signal from each object depends on how its orientation changes in time. The data from the IFT-1A experiment showed that the changing spatial orientation of the decoys and warheads as they fell through the near vacuum of space was nearly the same, each resulting in a signal that fluctuated in a varied and totally unpredictable way. Consequently, the IFT-1A data showed that there was no fluctuating feature in the signals from decoys and warheads that could be used to distinguish one object from the other. One of the early post-flight manifestations of this fact was immediately evident when the BMDO review of the telemetry data from the IFT-1A flight test resulted in the defense system always wrongly identifying a partially inflated balloon as the mock warhead. The team performing the post-flight analysis dealt with this failure by simply removing the balloon from the data, as if it was never there. Even after removing the balloon, the post-flight experimental data still showed that two other benign objects were brighter than the warhead and therefore were judged more likely to be the mock warhead. The team performing the post-flight experiment analysis dealt with this outcome by arbitrarily rejecting the data from the time interval where the two other objects were brighter, and instead chose without technical reason a second time period where the warhead was brighter due to the accident of its spatial orientation. This elaborate hoax was then screened by describing this tampering with the data and analysis in terms of misleading, confusing, and self contradictory language to create the false impression that the results were supported by well established scientific methods. In truth, the procedures followed by the BMDO were like rolling a pair of dice and throwing away all outcomes that did not give snake eyes, and then fraudulently making a claim that they have scientific evidence to show that they could reliably predict when a roll of the dice will be a snake eyes. These meretricious procedures used by the analysis team were applied because the IFT-1A data revealed that the signals from some of the decoys in the experiment were essentially indistinguishable from that of the mock warhead. Stated differently, the signals from both the warhead and balloons had no features that could be exploited to tell one from the other using credible scientific methods so the team invented a set of fraudulent methods to get the desired result. In view of the results of the IFT-1A experiment, it is now clear why the IFT-2, 3, and 4 experiments were re-configured following the analysis of IFT-1A. After the IFT-1A experiment, the BMDO changed the number of objects it planned to fly in follow-on experiments from ten to four. The four objects were to be a medium reentry vehicle (MRV), a 2.2 meter diameter balloon, and two balloons of diameter 0.6 meters. Some time after this reduction in the number of objects to be flown in IFT-2, 3, and 4 experiments, the number of objects was again changed. This time the two 0.6 meter balloons were removed, because of the high probability that the seeker would mistake one of them for the mock warhead. This action further reduced the number of objects for the IFT-2, 3, and 4 follow-on experiments from four to two, leaving only a single large balloon and a medium warhead. The fidelity of the IFT-2, 3, and 4 experiments was further undermined by the BMDO through the careful choice of a time of day for the intercept attempt, which placed the sun behind the EKV illuminating the balloon and warhead from the front. In this experimental geometry, the willful insertion of the 2.2 meter diameter balloon converted it from what otherwise might have been a credible decoy to an object that was unambiguously a beacon. In addition, the very large differences in the intensity between the balloon and warhead made it easy to distinguish between the two targets while at the same time making it easier for the EKV to home on the dimmer but still very bright warhead near the balloon. The results of the IFT-1A experiment, and the way it was allowed to influence the modifications to the IFT-2, 3, and 4 experiments, is of profound signific ance for the Presidents decision on whether or not to move forward with the current National Missile Defense concept, as it is now clear that the entire concept relies on a flawed analysis of the most basic and critical flight test data. When the data from these experiments are properly analyzed and interpreted, they indicate that the current NMD system will not be able to reliably deal with even the most simple first generation countermeasures. Such trivially simple countermeasures could include the use of tumbling warheads, partially inflated balloon decoys, and decoys and warheads constructed with tethered objects and rabbit-ear type appendages. The points made herein can be readily verified by a careful review of the study Independent Review of TRW Discrimination Techniques Final Report, (POET Study 1998-5). This document (included here as Attachment D) contains a mix of irrelevant and profound findings about the post-flight analysis of the telemetry data, creating a superficial but false impression of a sound scientific analysis. A careful reading of this report and the related documents included in the attachments instead reveals the following: * Data that demonstrated that the EKV would always mistake a partially inflated balloon for the mock lethal object was inexplicably removed from the post-flight analysis of the EKVs performance. * After this data was removed, the data from the eight other remaining benign objects and the lethal mock warhead showed that the system would still mistakenly choose two of the benign objects instead of the lethal object. * In order to alter this unfavorable outcome, the team tampered with both the data and the analysis of the data to artificially create a false outcome where the system would choose the mock warhead. This highly organized and systematic pattern of actions has the appearance of an elaborate scientific and technical blunder, which urgently needs to be investigated by a team of scientists who are recognized for their scientific accomplishments and independence from the Pentagon. Fortunately, the physical phenomena and analysis techniques at issue here are well known to many highly skilled independent scientists who work on problems in basic physics, computer science, and in the analysis of statistical data, so assembling a team of top-notch independent scientists who can evaluate the BMDOs analytical claims should be no problem. I urge the White House to put together such a team of scientists who can independently evaluate the procedures used to reach these erroneous conclusions about the content of the telemetry data from the IFT-1A flight test and the subsequent modifications of the IFT-2, 3, and 4 flight tests. Attachments A, B, C, and D contain detailed explanations of the findings provided in this letter along with the documentation from which they are derived. Sincerely yours, Theodore A. Postol Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Security Studies Program and Program in Science, Technology, and Society Cc: Leon Fuerth, Assistant to the Vice President for Security Affairs Hans Binnendijk, Assistant to the President and Director Defense and Arms Control Policy Phil Coyle, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense Attachment A: Explanation of Why the Sensor in the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) Cannot Reliably Discriminate Decoys from Warheads Attachment B: Technical Discussion of the Misinterpreted Results of theIFT-1A Experiment Due to Tampering With the Data and Analysis and Errors in the Interpretation of the Data Attachment C: Collected and Annotated Defense Criminal Investigation Service Documents Associated With the Investigation of Tampering With the Scientific and Technical Data and Analysis from the IFT-1A National Missile Defense Experiment Attachment D: Independent Review of TRW Discrimination Techniques, Final Report, POET Study 1998-5, M-J. Tsai, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Larry Ng, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Glenn Light, Aerospace Corporation, Frank Handler, POET/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Charles Meins, MIT Lincoln Laboratory -- Riad Wahby rsw at mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105 From QuTi0 at aol.com Thu Aug 2 11:37:38 2001 From: QuTi0 at aol.com (QuTi0 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:37:38 EDT Subject: remove Message-ID: From pzakas at toucancapital.com Thu Aug 2 13:05:35 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:05:35 -0400 Subject: Pi In-Reply-To: <200108021834.f72IYvk27318@artifact.psychedelic.net> Message-ID: this is truly interesting...do you have a link to the original 1996 paper? do you know if anyone has incorporated this into a program? phillip > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM > [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Eric Cordian > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:35 PM > To: cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com > Subject: Pi > > > > Interesting article recently posted on the Nature Web site about the > normality of Pi. > > http://www.nature.com/nsu/010802/010802-9.html > > "David Bailey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and > Richard Crandall of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, present evidence > that pi's decimal expansion contains every string of whole numbers. They > also suggest that all strings of the same length appear in pi with the > same frequency: 87,435 appears as often as 30,752, and 451 as often as > 862, a property known as normality." > > Of cryptographic interest. > > "While there may be no cosmic message lurking in pi's digits, if they are > random they could be used to encrypt other messages as follows: > > "Convert a message into zeros and ones, choose a string of digits > somewhere in the decimal expansion of pi, and encode the message by > adding the digits of pi to the digits of the message string, one after > another. Only a person who knows the chosen starting point in pi's > expansion will be able to decode the message." > > While there's presently no known formula which generates decimal digits of > Pi starting from a particular point, there's a clever formula which can be > used to generate HEX digits of Pi starting from anywhere, which Bailey et > al discovered in 1996, using the PSLQ linear relation algorithm. > > If you sum the following series for k=0 to k=infinity, its limit is Pi. > > 1/16^k[4/(8k+1) - 2/(8k+4) - 1/(8k+5) - 1/(8k+6)] > > (Exercise: Prove this series sums to Pi) > > Since this is an expression for Pi in inverse powers of 16, it is easy to > multiply this series by 16^d and take the fractional part, evaluating > terms where d>k by modular exponentiation, and evaluating a couple of > terms where d hexadecimal digit of Pi. > > Presumedly, if one could express PI as a series in inverse powers of 10, > one could do the same trick to get decimal digits. Such a series has so > far eluded researchers. > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" > From schear at lvcm.com Thu Aug 2 16:25:40 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:25:40 -0700 Subject: Pi In-Reply-To: <200108021834.f72IYvk27318@artifact.psychedelic.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010802162125.03fd8230@pop3.lvcm.com> At 11:34 AM 8/2/2001 -0700, Eric Cordian wrote: >Interesting article recently posted on the Nature Web site about the >normality of Pi. > >http://www.nature.com/nsu/010802/010802-9.html > >"David Bailey of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and > Richard Crandall of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, present evidence > that pi's decimal expansion contains every string of whole numbers. They > also suggest that all strings of the same length appear in pi with the > same frequency: 87,435 appears as often as 30,752, and 451 as often as > 862, a property known as normality." > >Of cryptographic interest. > >"While there may be no cosmic message lurking in pi's digits, if they are > random they could be used to encrypt other messages as follows: > >"Convert a message into zeros and ones, choose a string of digits > somewhere in the decimal expansion of pi, and encode the message by > adding the digits of pi to the digits of the message string, one after > another. Only a person who knows the chosen starting point in pi's > expansion will be able to decode the message." > >While there's presently no known formula which generates decimal digits of >Pi starting from a particular point, there's a clever formula which can be >used to generate HEX digits of Pi starting from anywhere, which Bailey et >al discovered in 1996, using the PSLQ linear relation algorithm. I tried to something like this in the late '80s to allow efficient loss-less compression using "conditioned" PRNs which could generate suitable auto correlated streams. Unfortunately, I did not discover a similar method of locating the desired sequences. The search during the compression phase was to computationally difficult and I abandoned the effort. steve From pablo-escobar at hushmail.com Thu Aug 2 16:28:12 2001 From: pablo-escobar at hushmail.com (pablo-escobar at hushmail.com) Date: Thu Aug 2 16:28:12 PDT 2001 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men (fwd) Message-ID: <200108021626.f72GQcI14144@mailserver1a> >No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on this list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade your home. If they end up shooting you (and I think their is a significant likelihood that they will), it will be in large part because of your macho siege mentality. Si. Threts are illoical, only be ready and do! Use their spy cameras against dem. Learn dem to see ninjas. When dey come in 'da middel of 'da nite have it shoot automatica guns wit armor piercing tips. Dig a tunnel so you can escape. Treet dem to killing infrasound from a leaf blowr grande whissel berried in your front jard. Pablo Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Aug 2 08:20:18 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:20:18 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Red Light Cameras, I don't get it. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, cubic-dog wrote: > years ago, when I was a MP in Germany, I used to chuckle over the red > light cameras and camera speed traps used by the Polizei. Neat idea, > never work in the states, we have a 4th amendment after all. You must have grown up in a different country, the U.S. of the 70s, last century. > Then the technology started moving over here. I was suprised at first, > but then, I though about how many bank cameras had been used to build > cases against bank robbers, and no one ever fussed about it. Of course it's unsurprising, most people are ignorant, and like to stay that way. > Now, for some reason, folks are getting their panties in a knot over > this. It's a bit too late, but it's a good thing it's happening at all. > What's the big deal? > > Yeah, big brother has a new surveillence tool, so what? Some people have put two and two together, and finally understood what you can do with with realtime machine vision biometrics, wireless WAN and data warehouses, and what that means in the context of Moore's law and the current political system. It's not just a new surveillance tool, that thing turns quantity into quality. And, of course, there's much more interesting stuff in the pipeline, so what we have is just a dot on the plot. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Aug 2 08:20:18 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:20:18 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Red Light Cameras, I don't get it. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, cubic-dog wrote: > years ago, when I was a MP in Germany, I used to chuckle over the red > light cameras and camera speed traps used by the Polizei. Neat idea, > never work in the states, we have a 4th amendment after all. You must have grown up in a different country, the U.S. of the 70s, last century. > Then the technology started moving over here. I was suprised at first, > but then, I though about how many bank cameras had been used to build > cases against bank robbers, and no one ever fussed about it. Of course it's unsurprising, most people are ignorant, and like to stay that way. > Now, for some reason, folks are getting their panties in a knot over > this. It's a bit too late, but it's a good thing it's happening at all. > What's the big deal? > > Yeah, big brother has a new surveillence tool, so what? Some people have put two and two together, and finally understood what you can do with with realtime machine vision biometrics, wireless WAN and data warehouses, and what that means in the context of Moore's law and the current political system. It's not just a new surveillance tool, that thing turns quantity into quality. And, of course, there's much more interesting stuff in the pipeline, so what we have is just a dot on the plot. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From info at onlinetradingselect.com Thu Aug 2 15:37:27 2001 From: info at onlinetradingselect.com (OTS) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:37:27 -0500 Subject: NASDAQ Market Message-ID: <200108022238.PAA18744@toad.com> Do you trade the QQQ, NASDAQ, or OEX 100? Trade the NQ (Emini NASDAQ) completely electronically in seconds. Sell into falling markets with no up tick rule. Use the leverage of the futures markets to your advantage. E-mini NQ market specs: Each Point: $20.00 per contract Contract Value: $20.00 times the index: approx 1733.00 x $20 = $34,660 Day Margin: $3,500 per contract Scenario: Buy 10 Contacts at 1733.00 Day Margin: $35,000 Each point = $200 (10 contracts time $20 per point) Sell 10 Contracts at 1750.00 Profit / Loss = 17 points times $200 = $3400 Remember, the exact opposite can happen too. In other words, if you bought 10 contracts and sold them for a 17 point loss, your account would incur a loss of $3400. Email me more information At Online Trading Select Corp here in Chicago, we offer 5 different systems that allow users to trade directly into GLOBEX2. You can trade the emini NASDAQ 24 hours a day. For free information about the e-mini NASDAQ. http://www.onlinetradingselect.com/nq.asp OTS 111 W. Jackson Blvd. 17th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-930-3950 Fax:413-375-2795 Toll Free: 866-244-1850 e-Mail: info at onlinetradingselect.com Web: http://www.onlinetradingselect.com There is a risk of loss in trading futures To be remove from this email list, please click here: mailto:info at onlinetradingselect.com?subject=Please_Remove -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4370 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: V_PHOTO_TRANSACT.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 12722 bytes Desc: not available URL: From unicorn at schloss.li Thu Aug 2 17:56:49 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:56:49 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of Aimee Farr > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 5:01 PM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Spoliation cites > > > The rapid acceptance of the spoliation theory out of CA has been > in response > to digital data. And this strikes me as unfortunate, because I don't think courts have understood this well. > Lewy v. Remington Arms Co. 836 F.2d 1104 (8th Cir., 1998) > In cases where a document retention policy is instituted in order to limit > damaging evidence available to potential plaintiffs, it may be proper to > give an instruction similar to the one requested by the Lewys. Similarly, > even if the court finds the policy to be reasonable given the > nature of the > documents subject to the policy, the court may find that under the > particular circumstances certain documents should have been retained > notwithstanding the policy. Yep. Ouch. Document retention/destruction policy a good idea, but no absolute defense. > For example, if the corporation knew or should > have known that the documents would become material at some point in the > future then such documents should have been preserved. Thus, a corporation > cannot blindly destroy documents and expect to be shielded by a seemingly > innocuous document retention policy. Gumbs, 718 F.2d at 96 ("Such a > presumption or inference arises, however, only when the spoliation or > destruction [of evidence] was intentional, and indicates fraud > and a desire > to suppress the truth, and it does not arise where the destruction was a > matter of routine with no fraudulent intent.") (quoting 29 Am. Jur. 2d > Evidence ' 177 (1967)). This is the nexus of spoliation theory that bother me. Consider: Retention policy is ok under Gumbs (but only in its limited scope discussed below) only when (under 29 Am. Jur. 2d) "the spoliation or destruction [of evidence] was intentional... it does not arise where the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent." The only problem is that the standard for intent is overly broad in my view. Consider again Lopez v. Surchia 112 Cal.App.2d 314. "A person who acts willfully intends "those consequences which (a) represent the very purpose for which an act is done (regardless of the likelihood of occurrence), or (b) are known to be substantially certain to result (regardless of desire)." Well, the other problem is that none of the judges seem to be reading or relying on the American Jurisprudence discussion, because that "desire to suppress the truth" language never seems to make into these cases. To me, in the absence of this little bit of case law from Lopez, Gumbs seems just fine and logical to me. With Lopez, however, "fraudulent intent" becomes the equivalent of knowledge that a court won't have access to the records if they are destroyed (under the second part of the Lopez test where consequences are "known to be substantially certain to result (regardless of desire)." You'd have to be of IQ < 70 to fail to make that conclusion. I am reminded of the asinine distinction drawn between "discrimination in intent" and "discrimination in effect" (the latter meaning that if you refuse to hire felons, and as it turns out this means that you don't hire any Alaskan natives because all of the ones who applied were felons, you are guilty of discriminatory practices even if you didn't even know they were Alaskan natives. See Also: "Redlining" prosecution silliness in the early and mid 90s). Effectively, corporations and individuals are required to possess oracle like powers to determine what their retention requirements are. That's just silly and very onerous. Also note that Gumbs is only really talking about how the destruction policy (which looks to have been a sub-issue of the matter at hand- not a contempt or destruction charge) will influence jury instructions- in this case what inferences the jury can be instructed are permitted when in their deliberations. In cases where the actual destruction of evidence is the primary matter of the case things seem to get more serious for the defendants- maybe because courts spend more time considering the issue. A jury instruction that the destruction of evidence could be considered fraudulent is bad. An actual charge of spoliation or obstruction is worse. > See also, In re Prudential Is. Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 169 F.R.D. > 598 (D.N.J. 1997) ($1 million fine for negligent destruction); > U.S. v. Koch > Industries Inc., 1998 WL 1744497 (N.D.Okla., 1998) (jury informed of > document destruction, and allowed to make inferences). I looked at this after I wrote the above. Exactly what bothered me. > But see, Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 179 F.R.D. 622 (D.Utah, 1998) > (analyzing time element and refusing to find spoliation in > absence of notice of potential relevance or court order). There are SOME reasonable courts. Seems time is a weighing factor, but not an absolute defense. Same story all around on this issue. > In a criminal context, U.S. v. Lundwall, S-1 97 Cr. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) > (finding obstruction of justice): > > ...Defendants contend that they were not subpoenaed or directed by a court > to furnish the information sought by the Roberts plaintiffs in their > discovery requests. They also submit that the Indictment is overbroad, > charging them not only with concealing and destroying documents > requested by > the Roberts plaintiffs, but also with concealing and destroying documents > likely to be requested by them. But the law is clear that neither > a subpoena > nor a court order directing the production of documents must be issued or > served as a prerequisite to a ' 1503 prosecution, and that the > concealment > and destruction of documents likely to be sought by subpoena is actionable > under the statute. See, e.g., Ruggiero, 934 F.2d at 450 (destroying > documents in anticipation of a subpoena can constitute obstruction); > Gravely, 840 F.2d at 1160 (under ' 1503, documents destroyed do > not have to > be under subpoena; it is sufficient if the defendant is aware > that the grand > jury will likely seek the documents in its investigation); I should have spent the time to look at the federal stacks the other day because Ruggiero is exactly what I was worried about- specifically that FRCP and USC would have more teeth and federal courts less tolerance. Ouch. I suspect it can only get worse as we start to get more electronic evidence cases, particularly in IP law- since the criminal sides of that are starting to show up in civil based actions (much like anti-trust in the 80s-90s). Everyone is a prosecutor who can afford to be one. Great. From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 16:14:08 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:14:08 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | FDA Approves Swallowable Camera Message-ID: <3B69DEC0.4AFFBE9D@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/02/161254.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 16:17:01 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:17:01 -0500 Subject: The Register - MS drops app blocking into XP Message-ID: <3B69DF6D.2B5282A4@ssz.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/20805.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 16:49:17 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:49:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The real enemies of the poor In-Reply-To: <3e932d40c2e7e42a3274729db01a749f@a3495.freemail.cotse.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: > No, that's not it: the only "trust" you give them comes with getting you on > the first page in the first place, not what you come to think of it > afterward. Exactly, perfect example of my point. You had already made up your mind that it was a 'worthy' read from past experience. > Surely you dont mean to say you never make choices of what to > read based on something's potential value to you. I don't read it unless I think I'll get something out of it; your assertion is really a tautology (though you don't seem to see that). > Haven't you ever picked up a book because you anticipated enjoying it, > started reading it, and put it down when you realized the methodology was > flawed or the scholarship was poor after all? All the time. Irrelevant to the point under discussion though. > If not, maybe you need to be more discriminate... I bet you > have though, and aren't quite the non-judgemental tabula rasa your comments > indicate. Ah, you draw a synonymous comparison that is false. 'expectation' is not 'judgement'. Not synonyms. Expectation is something that happens a priori, judgement post facto. Further, 'hope' is not 'expectation' either. As to methodology/scholarship, that's a slippery slope. It could be the reader not the author... Another point to add is that by using 'expectation' you're clearly not approaching the subject without bias (which isn't the same thing, despite your apparent equivalence, as tabula rasa). For a person to approach a subject tabula rasa they would need to be ignorant of the subject even in a subjective sense. If they are aware of the topic the best they can hope for is non-biased/open minded. Not the same thing. Generaly when I read a book, assuming it's not for personal pleasure, I'm not interested in the pro's or con's, but rather what info they can present that I haven't heard before (back to that hating sequels :). As to the logical consistency/validity of an argument, I can make my own mind up. I read books to expand my own model, not to take up anothers. > Agh, not personality, it comes back to the matter of not wasting time: Some > people seldom have anything to say that I find remotely interesting, so > I've learned it's in my best interest to skip them. 'wasting time' is 'personality'. Your waste of time is somebodies jewel of the Nile (I have these images of Creationist books I've read flashing through my mind, very unpleasant). > >I'll make an observation, at the risk of offending sensibilities, from > >your past commentary you look for work that goes along with what you > >believe/want. > > Look for? There's reading and then there's recommending. ;) And there's looking for corroborating evidence... :) > No, not at all actually. Believe it or not, I'm not so arrogant and self- > assured that I have to agree with someone to be able to admit when they've > got their opposition thoroughly outclassed in terms of sheer knowledge of > the subject. That wasn't where I was going with my commentary. I was simply pointing out that the way you had worded it made it look like you were choosing reading/research material based on POV/personality instead of logic of argument. That you chose reading material based on pleasant past experience and familiarity rather than raw subject matter relevancy. As to the general commentary, now it makes more sense with clarification...I even agree for the most part. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 16:51:39 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:51:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: perl OpenPGP posted at CPAN (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:32:43 -0700 From: Paul Harrison To: cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: perl OpenPGP posted at CPAN Benjamin Trott has posted the Crypt::OpenPGP module (v0.11) at CPAN: because "Of *course* the world needed a pure-Perl PGP implementation." According to the ReadMe "including support for all versions of PGP and GnuPG." --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 16:58:07 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:58:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: DOJ jails reporter, Ashcroft allows more journalist , subpoenas In-Reply-To: <007301c11940$47b26700$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > Prosecutor: You retained copies of this document? > Witness: No. > Prosecutor: You have none of these documents in your possession or control? > Witness: No. > Prosecutor: Are you aware of any other copies of this document? > Witness: Yes. > Prosecutor: Where are they? > Witness: An attorney representing the ABC trust bought a copy of the document > before I knew about these proceedings. > Prosecutor: Why didn't you instruct this attorney to turn over the documents? The attorney has no legal obligation to turn over HIS property to me, he did buy the document after all. The subpeona was directed at me, not another person who I have no control over. Here's his name and address, serve him a subpeona at your discretion. > > Why should an owner not be allowed to retain a copy? > > Cause the court says so. Worthless answer, but clearly exemplary of at least one of the problems of the court system. About the only way a judge could justifiably require all copies would be if any copy not in control would represent a clear and present danger/harm to some party. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 2 17:01:27 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:01:27 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites Message-ID: The rapid acceptance of the spoliation theory out of CA has been in response to digital data. Lewy v. Remington Arms Co. 836 F.2d 1104 (8th Cir., 1998) ---- ...Finally, the court should determine whether the document retention policy was instituted in bad faith. Gumbs v. International Harvester, Inc., 718 F.2d 88, 96 (3rd Cir. 1983) ("no unfavorable inference arises when the circumstances indicate that the document or article in question has been lost or accidentally destroyed, or where the failure to produce it is otherwise properly accounted for."); Boyd v. Ozark Air Lines, Inc., 568 F.2d 50, 53 (8th Cir. 1977) ("We recognize, however, that the destruction of business records may be sufficient to raise an unfavorable inference."). ...[note business records]... In cases where a document retention policy is instituted in order to limit damaging evidence available to potential plaintiffs, it may be proper to give an instruction similar to the one requested by the Lewys. Similarly, even if the court finds the policy to be reasonable given the nature of the documents subject to the policy, the court may find that under the particular circumstances certain documents should have been retained notwithstanding the policy. For example, if the corporation knew or should have known that the documents would become material at some point in the future then such documents should have been preserved. Thus, a corporation cannot blindly destroy documents and expect to be shielded by a seemingly innocuous document retention policy. Gumbs, 718 F.2d at 96 ("Such a presumption or inference arises, however, only when the spoliation or destruction [of evidence] was intentional, and indicates fraud and a desire to suppress the truth, and it does not arise where the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent.") (quoting 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence ' 177 (1967)). See also, In re Prudential Is. Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 169 F.R.D. 598 (D.N.J. 1997) ($1 million fine for negligent destruction); U.S. v. Koch Industries Inc., 1998 WL 1744497 (N.D.Okla., 1998) (jury informed of document destruction, and allowed to make inferences). But see, Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 179 F.R.D. 622 (D.Utah, 1998) (analyzing time element and refusing to find spoliation in absence of notice of potential relevance or court order). In a criminal context, U.S. v. Lundwall, S-1 97 Cr. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (finding obstruction of justice): ...Defendants contend that they were not subpoenaed or directed by a court to furnish the information sought by the Roberts plaintiffs in their discovery requests. They also submit that the Indictment is overbroad, charging them not only with concealing and destroying documents requested by the Roberts plaintiffs, but also with concealing and destroying documents likely to be requested by them. But the law is clear that neither a subpoena nor a court order directing the production of documents must be issued or served as a prerequisite to a ' 1503 prosecution, and that the concealment and destruction of documents likely to be sought by subpoena is actionable under the statute. See, e.g., Ruggiero, 934 F.2d at 450 (destroying documents in anticipation of a subpoena can constitute obstruction); Gravely, 840 F.2d at 1160 (under ' 1503, documents destroyed do not have to be under subpoena; it is sufficient if the defendant is aware that the grand jury will likely seek the documents in its investigation); --- DRIBBLE. ~Aimee From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 17:01:46 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:01:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. In-Reply-To: <002a01c119f2$219c3570$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > It's a base conflict. A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical > cynicism. Hardly, it's a club where a bunch of self-appointed geniuses decide they can make better decisions for other people than those people can. > dislike for the state of the law than a recognition of what it really is. Dispute arbitration. Who gets to make the choice, what the choices are. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From info at onlinetradingselect.com Thu Aug 2 17:07:48 2001 From: info at onlinetradingselect.com (OTS) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:07:48 -0500 Subject: NASDAQ Market Message-ID: Do you trade the QQQ, NASDAQ, or OEX 100? Trade the NQ (Emini NASDAQ) completely electronically in seconds. Sell into falling markets with no up tick rule. Use the leverage of the futures markets to your advantage. E-mini NQ market specs: Each Point: $20.00 per contract Contract Value: $20.00 times the index: approx 1733.00 x $20 = $34,660 Day Margin: $3,500 per contract Scenario: Buy 10 Contacts at 1733.00 Day Margin: $35,000 Each point = $200 (10 contracts time $20 per point) Sell 10 Contracts at 1750.00 Profit / Loss = 17 points times $200 = $3400 Remember, the exact opposite can happen too. In other words, if you bought 10 contracts and sold them for a 17 point loss, your account would incur a loss of $3400. Email me more information At Online Trading Select Corp here in Chicago, we offer 5 different systems that allow users to trade directly into GLOBEX2. You can trade the emini NASDAQ 24 hours a day. For free information about the e-mini NASDAQ. http://www.onlinetradingselect.com/nq.asp OTS 111 W. Jackson Blvd. 17th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-930-3950 Fax:413-375-2795 Toll Free: 866-244-1850 e-Mail: info at onlinetradingselect.com Web: http://www.onlinetradingselect.com There is a risk of loss in trading futures To be remove from this email list, please click here: mailto:info at onlinetradingselect.com?subject=Please_Remove -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4370 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: V_PHOTO_TRANSACT.GIF Type: image/gif Size: 12722 bytes Desc: not available URL: From evs_66 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 2 19:14:22 2001 From: evs_66 at yahoo.com (evs_66 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:14:22 -0700 Subject: info you wanted!! -QAXN Message-ID: <200108030214.TAA27799@ecotone.toad.com> Dear cypherpunks Spend a minute or so here and you will find that YOU REALLY OWE IT TO YOURSELF TO LOOK AT THIS!!! AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: "Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time" THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET! BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR !! Before you say "Bull", please read the following : This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the Investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are "absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some megabucks with only $25 out of pocket cost". DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY AND RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: "Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in". Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. Here is another testimonial: "This program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa ..... 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total 0of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything ." More testimonials later but first, **PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN !!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: * Order all 5 reports shown on the list below. * For each report, send $5CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. * When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5 = $25.00. * Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also, make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. ** IMPORTANT - DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step "1 through 6" or you will loose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So, Do not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1. After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. (This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting his fortune.) 2. Move the name & address in REPORT #4 down TO REPORT #5. 3. Move the name & address in REPORT #3 down TO REPORT #4. 4. Move the name & address in REPORT #2 down TO REPORT #3. 5. Move the name & address in REPORT #1 down TO REPORT #2 6. Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT #1 Position. ** VERY IMPORTANT: PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COPY EVERY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCURATELY! Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your Computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the Internet, the 5 reports you Purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. THERE ARE 2 PRIMARY METHODS TO GET THIS VENTURE GOING: METHOD # 1 : BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.2% . Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for Report #1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That's = 100 people responded and ordered Report #2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report #3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report #4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report #5. THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH = $500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1. $50+ 2. $500+ 3. $5,000 + 4. $50,000+ 5. $500,000........Grand Total = $555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone, or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD #2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET Advertising on the net is very, very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method #1 and add METHOD #2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. ___________ AVAILABLE REPORTS_____________ ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes : Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: Report #1:"The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net" Order Report #1 from: Evan Pitman 7 Pine Lodge crt, Templestowe, 3106 VIC, Australia. Report #2: "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Net" Order Report #2 from: Cardy Wong Pak Lee Bldg., 3/F., Flat A, 6-8 King's Road, Hong Kong. Report #3:"The Secret to Multilevel Marketing on the Net" Order Report #3 from: JM & Associates 4301 Idlewild Ave North Little Rock, Ar. 72116-8274 USA Report #4:"How to Become a Millionaire Utilizing MLM & the Net" Order Report #4 from: S. Jacobs 4209 Topsider St. Las Vegas , NV 89129 USA Report #5:"How to Send 1 Million E-mails For Free" Order Report #5 from: Dario Va 16541 Blatt Blvd #206 Weston, FL 33326 USA $$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: * If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. * After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT #2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. * Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER : * Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP Track of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. * IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business!!! FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: "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 weeks and months than you have ever imagined. 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 report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 andmoved others to #2....#5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails and your name will be on everyone 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! ********** MORE TESTIMONIALS*********** "My name is Mitchell. My wife , Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving "junk mail". I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received a total of $147,200.00 all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her "hobby". Mitchell Wolf, M.D. , Chicago, Illinois "Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that theinitial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big". Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada "I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else...11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks". Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. "It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanx to Internet". Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON OUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. ONE TIME MAILING, NO NEED TO REMOVE This message is sent in compliance of the proposed bill SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618. Further transmission to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to: earl167 at lycos.com with the word Remove in the subject line. This message is not intended for residents in the State of Washington, screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. From unicorn at schloss.li Thu Aug 2 19:22:28 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:22:28 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of Harmon Seaver > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:02 PM > To: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net > Subject: Re: Spoliation cites > > > I think you're getting a little off-track here --- the original > discussion was about whether the court could make the journalist turn > over *all copies* of a document. She wasn't trying to destroy them to > hide anything, I'm not sure where you have been over the last 48 hours but clearly you've not been paying attention. Courts _clearly_ have the ability to demand the production of all copies and originals of a document. They have merely to order it. They _clearly_ have the ability to smack a gag order on also. The rest of us settled that question some time ago. > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it. Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the opposite of what you claim above. (I didn't see a legal background on your resume either but perhaps you have any cites that I don't know about?) > --- the interesting > question is whether or not they can somehow expect you to turn over > *all* copies of a document you've published on freenet or mojo. And > whether they are encrypted or not is irrelevant. Now I'm beginning to regret responding to this post at all because it's painfully clear that you just haven't got a good grip on this issue. Had you been reading you'd have known the answer to this, and why encryption or non-encryption was important about 40 posts ago. > Although really, the most serious question everyone should be > asking is why the court wants "all" copies. Asked and answered. Summarizing: You assert that the topic of electronic evidence spoliation is off topic for cypherpunks. You restate a question answered some 48 hours ago. You boldly assert, incorrectly, what the law is with respect to compelled production and court powers in the discovery process. You restate the question which followed the original query, as if it had never been asked and answered (which it had and was). You reintroduce the encryption and destruction issue, which I'm pretty sure I brought up and speculated on in the first place- and which you have earlier claimed was irrelevant. You return to ask again the original (answered) question which was the nexus of the discussion. Fine piece of work. From schear at lvcm.com Thu Aug 2 19:27:00 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:27:00 -0700 Subject: President Bush rests comfortably after surgery to implant pacemaker in brain Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010802192605.03f97b00@pop3.lvcm.com> President Bush rests comfortably after surgery to implant pacemaker in brain Posted on Friday, July 13 @ 09:34:24 EDT By Tom McNichol, Salon WASHINGTON -- In the second White House health scare in little more than a week, doctors Wednesday night implanted a sophisticated pacemaker in President Bush's brain. The device, known as an implantable cranial defibrillator, or ICD, continuously monitors and records the president's brain waves. When Mr. Bush's brain activity becomes dangerously slow for a chief executive, the device delivers a mild electric shock, jolting the president back to a relatively active mental state. "I feel good," the president told reporters several hours after the operation. Bush then twitched noticeably. "I mean, I feel well," he said. Doctors say the implant is performing flawlessly, although they're trying to limit the number of shocks Bush receives to fewer than 100 a day. The surgery came barely a week after Vice President Dick Cheney was fitted with a device to regulate his irregular heartbeat. The White House portrayed last night's medical procedure as an "insurance policy" against further problems for the president. At a news conference at George Washington University Hospital, where the operation was performed, doctors downplayed the seriousness of Bush's condition. The periodic electric jolts from the implant, physicians say, will have minimal effect on the president. "His hair is not going to stand on end," said chief surgeon Dr. Alan J.Thayer. "Well, maybe a little." The president, looking tired but fit after his operation, said that the device will help him function better as a world leader. "The American people need to know that their president is equipped to handle a trouble spot like Slovenia," Mr. Bush said. "Serbia, I mean Serbia," he added, his head jerking violently. Bush has an extensive medical history of moderately impaired thinking and reasoning, dating back to the 1970s. Doctors have long noted that the president's thoughts easily become confused, and that his public pronouncements often deteriorate into a tangle of mispronunciations, faulty logic and bad grammar. Although Bush's condition wasn't serious enough to prevent him from running for president, or from winning the state of Florida, doctors say his condition has deteriorated significantly in recent months. The president's brain wave activity dipped dangerously low during his recent trip to Europe, and stopped altogether at one point during a meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader was unaware of any change in Mr. Bush's condition, officials say. Yesterday, the president's doctors subjected him to a battery of mental tests to assess his risk of developing a potentially fatal "zero brain wave" pattern. Once the risk was confirmed, surgeons decided to implant the electronic device, which acts both as a pacemaker and a defibrillator. The pacemaker component is programmed to speed up the president's thinking when it becomes abnormally slow. The defibrillator can shock his brain back to a normal state if Bush's thoughts become "too fast," although doctors say that the chances of that happening are remote. The device that doctors sutured to the base of the president's cerebellum is known as a Medtronic Gem IV DR model. (There were some problems with an earlier model, which had to be recalled by the manufacturer.) Such devices, once the stuff of science fiction, have become an increasingly common tool in modern neurology. Hundreds of prominent Americans have been fitted with so-called mental pacemakers in recent years, including actor Adam Sandler, TV personality Mary Hart, Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, singer Britney Spears, Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., former vice president Dan Quayle, and the entire board of directors of the now-defunct Pets.com. Some of those who wear a mental pacemaker expressed hope that the president's condition would raise public awareness about their circumstance. "This may turn out to be a blessing in the skies for all of us," said talk show host Maury Povich, who was fitted with one of the first Medtronic devices four years ago. Mr. Povich trembled violently from head to toe before adding, "I mean disguise, disguise, for God's sake, turn it off." Bush has been advised to avoid deep thoughts for a few days to give the device a chance to settle in place. Doctors say the president so far has cooperated fully with the recommendation. Bush has also been told to alternate holding his cell phone against his right and left ear so the implant receives equal doses of radiation from each side. And the president will have to run at full speed whenever passing through White House metal detectors. Several congressional leaders privately expressed concern about the president's medical procedure, coming barely a week after Cheney was fitted with a device to regulate his irregular heartbeat. But Bush dismissed the worries, stating that the Bush-Cheney team is "more fit than ever" to lead the country. "You'll find no healthier duo than Dick Cheney and I," Bush said. The president hesitated, as if waiting for a signal, and when none came, broke into a toothy grin. From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 2 19:47:33 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:47:33 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites Message-ID: <3B6A10C5.4128176D@lsil.com> Decent thread. I still think there is plenty of opportunity for the laws of mathematics to make other laws moot but this is interesting. I have a few, hopefully not useless or inflammatory, comments. 1) The piece of useful information most easily extracted from this thread is that the best defense is that the "evidence" never existed and the device lacks the capability of creating it. Is it possible that the courts could decide that using or designing a device lacking logging features or that compiling a device from source with logging capabilities but with those capabilities selectively disabled is in itself an act of spoliation? These are acts done without any specific knowledge of people, places, things or events likely to be of interest to a court. General knowledge of the effects of designing, compiling or using such a device might be shown. 1a) Isn't there a PA statute prohibiting altering the headers on a communication? 1b) Could a remailer be declared to be a common carrier and subject to CALEA? 1c) Could a remailer operator be compelled to add or enable logging features without notifying users? 2) Most of the cites seem to describe cases involving corporations. Is it reasonable to think that while in theory corporations and individuals could be treated identically that in practice there are more documentation requirements on the part of a corporation, especially in the case of one that produces a product that is sold to the public? Would the expectations be different for individuals not engaged in commercial activities? > I suspect it can only get worse as we start to get more electronic evidence > cases, particularly in IP law- since the criminal sides of that are starting > to show up in civil based actions (much like anti-trust in the 80s-90s). > Everyone is a prosecutor who can afford to be one. > > Great. > 3) The same technology that is providing all this super eavesdropping and logging capability is also making it easier to fabricate or plant evidence. Electronic evidence may seem wonderful to a prosecutor but aren't we going to have to deal with its vulnerability at some point? Maybe only after someone with deep pockets gets hurt. Mike From unicorn at schloss.li Thu Aug 2 20:09:26 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:09:26 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civility In-Reply-To: <3bd64a4c18b7a435db97f60526b2b8d0@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of An Metet > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:10 PM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, > civilit > > > Black Unicorn, esquire, wrote: > > (Lesson for other posters- to get legal research for free out of > > Uni, just insult him a lot)... > > > > ...Seriously interested researchers will spend time at the library, > > look up statutes and learn to Shepardize. I happened to be at the > > law library for an unrelated matter so I wasted 90 minutes looking > > this silliness up for you and the list Mr. May. I herewith submit > > my invoice, payable on receipt, for more civil treatment, for > > services rendered. > > Many people on and off this list have spent a lot more than 90 minutes > researching things, writing posts, writing code, solving math > problems, etc., etc. Tim May in particular has written thousands of > pages of high quality or entertaining work. I don't know you or how long you've been around cypherpunks but Mr. May and I have been bouncing discussions (of both a civil and uncivil nature depending on our respective moods) pretty much since the list started. People might claim many things about me, but a lack of respect for Mr. May is certainly not one of them. What astounds me, and is right in line with your point about people spending much more time than 90 minutes on research for this list, is that in an environment of such dedicated posters (and I totally agree with you- once on a node like lne.com that does a touch of filtering the content on this list is second to none- which is why I'm here) so many spend a disproportionately _minute_ amount of time in such work before making entirely wrong headed assertions about law and government and yet feel entirely justified conveying this advice as gospel to their fellows, who often take it at face value. (Revisit my IANAL discussion in posts a few days ago in which I wonder aloud why these posters are taken seriously while the "I am not a doctor, but" posters are not). If you've been here for any length of time I'm sure several of the most egregious examples will come to your mind immediately without my prompting. It hardly seems prudent to allow these errors go uncorrected. In fact, in my position, I would consider it irresponsible of me not to comment in some way that would permit designers of code and systems which actually see deployment (of which this list is uniquely populated) to write systems that have practical and legal grounding to actually proliferate anonymity and confidential communications capabilities world-wide without running afoul of our most esteemed attorney general. It would have been really nice if someone from e.g. Napster had been listening to discussions like this back when that company's founder began design work. I can think of many other examples in which millions (if not billions) could have been saved with a little sage and cautious legal advice properly deposited in the ears of the security or design "geeks" at the appropriate time. Do I consider myself _more_ valuable than "geeks" or those who write code? Don't be silly. I will constantly, however, assert that the legal issues that plague all the kinds of cutting edge technologies that consistently see discussion on this list 5 and even 10 years before they are ever even considered by the market or the real world, much less a courtroom, require addressing by someone who actually knows what they are talking about on the subject of legal process. > Your complaints about "free research" suggest that you have the sense > that you are more valuable than or superior to other contributors. I think that's quite a reach on your part if you are pointing it out generally. If you mean with specific reference to legal points regarding the production of documents and such- very much the focus of my early legal career- then I would submit to you that I would have to be awfully stupid _not_ to have more experience and expertise in these matters than anyone who had not spent the amount of time I had in the field. (I hope that's not a thinly veiled accusation on your part that I am somehow stupid). By the same token you will never, _never_ catch me second guessing, e.g., Mr. May on topics related to Physics. Look, I would like to play basketball as well as Michael Jordan. Is it somehow unfair of life that I cannot? Is Michael Jordan insulting someone when he comments about the game in a way that suggests he knows what he is talking about? Of course we recognize this as an absurd assertion. So why should anyone be offended by the proposition that "geeks" might not always have the best grip on the law and need a touch of advice on occasion? Does pointing that out somehow make me a snob? If so, fine. I'm a snob. Still, I readily admit that I don't always have the best grip on system design, nor do I claim to. I am more than happy to volunteer my expertise, and my research time, to try to focus discussions (or confuse discussions depending on your view) with respect to legal matters that impact system design. I am _not_ happy to do so just because someone wants to see me spew out a long list of citations which they are unlikely to ever read. (Mr. May is specifically excluded from this comment because I am pretty sure he actually reads my responses and checks up on me on occasion). I, after all, don't demand cites from C++ manuals, or physics texts when a fairly recognized expert in those fields posts on those topics here. If I were to make such requests they would be for my own edification and as requests for references to where I could learn about the topic, not just to try and prove a point. Most of the posters I end up citing major passages to have no, and never had any, interest in learning about law- whether they realize it or not- but rather putting as little effort into the consideration of it as possible, primarily out of the grossest of intellectual laziness, while still spouting off cliche legal errors that have long since been corrected on this list and elsewhere, like "all foreign embassies are technically foreign soil" or "you can't drive barefoot, it's illegal" or, one of my favorites, "if you ask and they don't tell you they are police, then you're safe from prosecution." Again, and I shouldn't have to keep pointing this out, I hardly mean this as a reference to _all_ posters on cypherpunks. > While this is couched in civility, one could conclude that this is an > insult, something along the lines of "of course geeks should work for > free, but I'm a lawyer!" One concluding such might also be prone to conclude that geeks are overly sensitive to such matters because of an underdeveloped sense of the value of their own work. This conclusion would be just as much a reach as your own, above, and not in any way bear resemblance to my attitude about most of the coders on this list (but completely in line with my attitudes about armchair posters who are mostly typing the rubbish they purvey here merely to sound busy with keystrokes in their cube at work). > It's a free world, but it might work better > not to insult people, even if the insult is slightly veiled. I think if you review the posts on this topic over the last few days you might find that I've been perhaps the most civil of the authors, even in the face of some pretty caustic replies. > (Your spoliation posts have been interesting. Thank you for writing > them.) Oh, you read them? That will be $750.00 please. From bear at sonic.net Thu Aug 2 20:53:52 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: <3bd64a4c18b7a435db97f60526b2b8d0@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, An Metet wrote: >Your complaints about "free research" suggest that you have the sense >that you are more valuable than or superior to other contributors. He is not "superior" in any substantial way; however, his expertise in law, combined with a willingness to actually discuss it, are in short supply here. That same expertise is extremely valuable to people designing systems, and for the sake of such people, please do not discourage him in any way from sharing it. The discussion of legal spoilation has been particularly enlightening; Before this discussion started I knew that it was possible to get in trouble for destroying documents before charges were filed or a subpeona was served. But before an investigation is even under way? Before a complaint is even filed? The mind boggles. I'd never have known that without reading the caterpillar cite, and as one who is not of the Priveleged Caste in terms of access to legal information, (ie, willing to pay thousands of bucks to Westlaw or whoever each year) I am grateful to him for passing it on. A worthwhile question for Cypherpunks -- all of the court decisions and cites are, technically, public domain information. And yet access to that information, in terms of legal databases, remains either extremely expensive, or the province of a Priveleged Caste (to whom "extremely expensive" looks like "normal business expenses"). Westlaw owns some of the most expensive copyrights, per-copy, of any entity -- and all they've done is number the pages and paragraphs and provide an index on public domain information. I think that there is, or ought to be, a good cypherpunk solution to making legal cites available for everyone. A distributed law library, hosted on many servers? Legal cites on Freenet? After all, what good is crypto anarchy if we can't break a copyright monopoly (or at least a case of non-competitive pricing) imposed on public domain information? Bear From hseaver at ameritech.net Thu Aug 2 19:02:22 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 21:02:22 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites References: Message-ID: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net> I think you're getting a little off-track here --- the original discussion was about whether the court could make the journalist turn over *all copies* of a document. She wasn't trying to destroy them to hide anything, As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it --- the interesting question is whether or not they can somehow expect you to turn over *all* copies of a document you've published on freenet or mojo. And whether they are encrypted or not is irrelevant. Although really, the most serious question everyone should be asking is why the court wants "all" copies. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From bear at sonic.net Thu Aug 2 21:04:07 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > >> SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. >> STORE: "Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my >> desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are gone". >> >> You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be >> happy. > >And there won't be a damn thing that they can do about it either unless >they can PROVE you were aware of THE (as opposed to a hypothetical one) >investigation. Wow. You're seriously in denial, you know that? Hint: The cites BU provided are *REAL*. This actually happens, routinely. Bear From mail0719 at 1chn.com Thu Aug 2 21:37:25 2001 From: mail0719 at 1chn.com (Fred) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:37:25 Subject: Read this_Big Bucks little effort Message-ID: <200108030427.f734RqJ30993@rigel.cyberpass.net> Dear Friend and Future Millionaire, All of my mailings are sent complying to the proposed United States Federal requirements for commercial e-mail: Sections 301 Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.618. Please see the bottom of this message for further information and removal instructions. This e-mail contains the ENTIRE PLAN for making a lot of money in the next 90-120 days. I received this same letter two weeks ago. After reading it, I got in contact with some of the individuals listed below. I think it's an excellent opportunity that is well worth the small investment of time and money, and believe that you will too! FL AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from our home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time. THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET! =============================================== BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR !! Before you say ''Bull'' , please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below , to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO. Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost''. DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in''. Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. Here is another testimonial: ''This program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa ..... 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything .'' More testimonials later but first : ****** PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE ******* If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN !!! FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: **** Order all 5 reports shown on the list below. **** For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. **** When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5 = $25.00. **** Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. ****.IMPORTANT - DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will loose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1.. After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY ! ========================================================= Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1 : BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ============================================ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.2% . Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That's = 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5. THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH = $500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000 ......... Grand Total = $555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think or a moment what would happen if everyone, or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET =================================================== Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it ! Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. AVAILABLE REPORTS ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in atleast 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper,Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. ========= AVAILABLE REPORTS============= ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. ============================================== Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY only) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write a.The NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, b. YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and c. your name and postal address. (In case of mail difficulties.) PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Fred Leite 35 Sunvale Court SE Calgary Alberta Canada T2X 2S7 REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Net" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Charles Coggins 129 Johnny Appleseed Lane Leominster, MA PZ[01453] USA REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Net" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: Kristin Houle c/o 2551 Onyx Drive Shakopee, Minnesota state PZ[55379] REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire Utilizing the Power of MLM and the Net" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Benjamin Perez 465 NE 181st Ave #512 Portland OR. 97230 USA REPORT #5 "How to Send Out One Million e-mails for Free" ORDER REPORT #5 FROM Bruce Larkin P.O.Box 607923 Orlando FL. 32860 USA $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 in 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you , and the cash will continue to roll in ! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER : Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!! FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: "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 weeks and months than you have ever imagined. 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 report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2...........# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails and your name will be on everyone 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 ! ************** MORE TESTIMONIALS **************** '' My name is Mitchell. My wife , Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail''. I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I ''knew'' it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so'' on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received a total of $ 147,200.00 all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her ''hobby''. Mitchell Wolf, M.D. , Chicago, Illinois '' Not being the gambling type, it took me several eeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big''. Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada '' I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.........11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks''. Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. '' It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20, 560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanx to internet''. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM ! If If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. THIS IS A ONE TIME MAILING, NO NEED TO REMOVE This message is sent in compliance of the proposed bill SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618. Further transmission to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to: mailto:highenergy at hushmail.com?subject=remove. This message is not intended for residents in the State of Washington,screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. From mail0719 at 1chn.com Thu Aug 2 21:37:26 2001 From: mail0719 at 1chn.com (Fred) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:37:26 Subject: Read this_Big Bucks little effort Message-ID: <200108100924.EAA04394@einstein.ssz.com> Dear Friend and Future Millionaire, All of my mailings are sent complying to the proposed United States Federal requirements for commercial e-mail: Sections 301 Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.618. Please see the bottom of this message for further information and removal instructions. This e-mail contains the ENTIRE PLAN for making a lot of money in the next 90-120 days. I received this same letter two weeks ago. After reading it, I got in contact with some of the individuals listed below. I think it's an excellent opportunity that is well worth the small investment of time and money, and believe that you will too! FL AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from our home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time. THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET! =============================================== BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR !! Before you say ''Bull'' , please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below , to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO. Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost''. DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in''. Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. Here is another testimonial: ''This program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa ..... 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything .'' More testimonials later but first : ****** PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE ******* If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN !!! FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: **** Order all 5 reports shown on the list below. **** For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. **** When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5 = $25.00. **** Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. ****.IMPORTANT - DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will loose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1.. After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY ! ========================================================= Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1 : BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ============================================ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.2% . Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That's = 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5. THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH = $500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000 ......... Grand Total = $555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think or a moment what would happen if everyone, or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET =================================================== Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it ! Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. AVAILABLE REPORTS ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in atleast 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper,Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. ========= AVAILABLE REPORTS============= ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. ============================================== Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY only) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write a.The NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, b. YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and c. your name and postal address. (In case of mail difficulties.) PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Fred Leite 35 Sunvale Court SE Calgary Alberta Canada T2X 2S7 REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Net" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Charles Coggins 129 Johnny Appleseed Lane Leominster, MA PZ[01453] USA REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Net" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: Kristin Houle c/o 2551 Onyx Drive Shakopee, Minnesota state PZ[55379] REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire Utilizing the Power of MLM and the Net" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Benjamin Perez 465 NE 181st Ave #512 Portland OR. 97230 USA REPORT #5 "How to Send Out One Million e-mails for Free" ORDER REPORT #5 FROM Bruce Larkin P.O.Box 607923 Orlando FL. 32860 USA $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 in 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you , and the cash will continue to roll in ! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER : Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!! FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: "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 weeks and months than you have ever imagined. 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 report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2...........# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails and your name will be on everyone 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 ! ************** MORE TESTIMONIALS **************** '' My name is Mitchell. My wife , Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail''. I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I ''knew'' it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so'' on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received a total of $ 147,200.00 all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her ''hobby''. Mitchell Wolf, M.D. , Chicago, Illinois '' Not being the gambling type, it took me several eeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big''. Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada '' I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.........11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks''. Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. '' It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20, 560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanx to internet''. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM ! If If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. THIS IS A ONE TIME MAILING, NO NEED TO REMOVE This message is sent in compliance of the proposed bill SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618. Further transmission to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to: mailto:highenergy at hushmail.com?subject=remove. This message is not intended for residents in the State of Washington,screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. From anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org Thu Aug 2 19:09:59 2001 From: anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org (An Metet) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:09:59 -0400 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit Message-ID: <3bd64a4c18b7a435db97f60526b2b8d0@freedom.gmsociety.org> Black Unicorn, esquire, wrote: > (Lesson for other posters- to get legal research for free out of > Uni, just insult him a lot)... > > ...Seriously interested researchers will spend time at the library, > look up statutes and learn to Shepardize. I happened to be at the > law library for an unrelated matter so I wasted 90 minutes looking > this silliness up for you and the list Mr. May. I herewith submit > my invoice, payable on receipt, for more civil treatment, for > services rendered. Many people on and off this list have spent a lot more than 90 minutes researching things, writing posts, writing code, solving math problems, etc., etc. Tim May in particular has written thousands of pages of high quality or entertaining work. Your complaints about "free research" suggest that you have the sense that you are more valuable than or superior to other contributors. While this is couched in civility, one could conclude that this is an insult, something along the lines of "of course geeks should work for free, but I'm a lawyer!" It's a free world, but it might work better not to insult people, even if the insult is slightly veiled. (Your spoliation posts have been interesting. Thank you for writing them.) From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 2 19:14:04 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The real enemies of the poor Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote: Jim wrote: > Agh, not personality, it comes back to the matter of not wasting time: >Some > people seldom have anything to say that I find remotely interesting, so > I've learned it's in my best interest to skip them. >'wasting time' is 'personality'. In this context I meant "personality" as in demeanor and attitude, not scholarship and competence. Frankly I don't really care if someone is rude, cranky, disrespectful, flippant, etc. around here as long as they can put together a halfway decent argument more often than not. If they can't, too bad. And on the other hand, if people want to reasonably mull over something they find utterly fascinating that bores me to tears, more power to em. I can't see how my not going out of my way to involve myself in the discussion is indicative of some great moral failing. >Your waste of time is somebodies >jewel of the Nile (I have these images of Creationist books I've read >flashing through my mind, very unpleasant). So do you keep on finding more of the same or have you got on to something of more value to you? > >I'll make an observation, at the risk of offending sensibilities, from > >your past commentary you look for work that goes along with what you > >believe/want. > > Look for? There's reading and then there's recommending. ;) >And there's looking for corroborating evidence... :) Well we all do whether we intend to or not: no matter how much you try there's no getting out from under your experience. You wouldn't be "yourself" without it. If something interests you, it's only natural that you want to know more about it: not to ever accept anything blindly, but to avoid re-inventing the wheel. "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." you know? Recommending books, on the other hand, has to do with getting people to share an aspect of your mental context. Like that book I recommended on MOUT awhile back: it's not that I agree with its conclusions or the ideology behind it--it's just that it made a powerful impression on the way I think about some of the issues that are most important to me, and went a long way toward providing valuable information I didn't already have. Why wouldn't I be interested in spreading it around. > No, not at all actually. Believe it or not, I'm not so arrogant and self- > assured that I have to agree with someone to be able to admit when they've > got their opposition thoroughly outclassed in terms of sheer knowledge of > the subject. >That wasn't where I was going with my commentary. I was simply pointing >out that the way you had worded it made it look like you were choosing >reading/research material based on POV/personality instead of logic of >argument. That you chose reading material based on pleasant past >experience and familiarity rather than raw subject matter relevancy. Maybe it came across that way, but if you knew me you'd know I read a lot I don't recommend. And if I recommend what I find valuable and/or agree with? Anything less is wasting everybody's time. >As to the general commentary, now it makes more sense with >clarification...I even agree for the most part. I'll get around to issues in that other half sometime, it ought to be interesting... ~Faustine. From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 20:19:45 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:19:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > business records may be sufficient to raise an unfavorable inference."). > ...[note business records]... > In cases where a document retention policy is instituted in order to limit > damaging evidence available to potential plaintiffs, it may be proper to > give an instruction similar to the one requested by the Lewys. Similarly, > even if the court finds the policy to be reasonable given the nature of the > documents subject to the policy, the court may find that under the > particular circumstances certain documents should have been retained > notwithstanding the policy. Bullshit. 'policy' is not 'required by law'. The only documents the court can reasonably expect any business to retain, irrespective of (future) reason or possible motive, are those specifically required by law. These laws in most states are very limited in this respect. For example here in Texas, a business must keep records according to purchases and sales for tax purposes, but they are not required to keep identifying info for the parties making those sales/purchases (there are some specific laws that extend this, eg chemical sales). But the light store, for example, dumps the actual receipts after 30 days. Now if a court comes back and says that such a policy is spoliating because the oinkdroids happen to want to know if somebody purchased a grow light on a particular date and the policy prevents that, then it's too damn bad for the court and the cops. The law does not allow the courts to make up arbitrary 'should have's' whenever it wants to simply because it's convenient for the court. (It's also worth mentioning that the reporter who is in jail in Houston currently faces a maximum 18 months incarceration, after that they get popped irrespective of what the judge may want, even judges face habeas corpus on contempt citations eventually) If courts are not held to account to the same law they execute then the law is worthless. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 20:29:29 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:29:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > This is the nexus of spoliation theory that bother me. Consider: > > Retention policy is ok under Gumbs (but only in its limited scope discussed > below) only when (under 29 Am. Jur. 2d) "the spoliation or destruction [of > evidence] was intentional... it does not arise where the destruction was a > matter of routine with no fraudulent intent." The only problem is that the > standard for intent is overly broad in my view. Consider again Lopez v. > Surchia 112 Cal.App.2d 314. "A person who acts willfully intends "those > consequences which (a) represent the very purpose for which an act is done > (regardless of the likelihood of occurrence), or (b) are known to be > substantially certain to result (regardless of desire)." Well, the other > problem is that none of the judges seem to be reading or relying on the > American Jurisprudence discussion, because that "desire to suppress the > truth" language never seems to make into these cases. This is a problem with the defence lawyers, not (just) the judges. 'willfully' and 'substantialy certain' are the bail-out phrases. Unless there is some proof that you intended to destroy the documents, not as a matter of policy, but as a matter of obfuscation then you're goose is cooked. If you're policy is 'never keep the records' or 'destroy all records in a timely fashion' (exempting legaly required documentation) then the charge is going to be a lot harder to make stick all by itself. > records if they are destroyed (under the second part of the Lopez test where > consequences are "known to be substantially certain to result (regardless of > desire)." You'd have to be of IQ < 70 to fail to make that conclusion. The 'conclusion' actualy begs the question. The point you and the courts seem to be jumping right over isn't the 'spoliation' per se but rather the environment that indicates 'willful' and 'substantial certainty' in the consequences of those document destructions. It isn't the document destruction per se but rather your motive to destroy them to hide your crime. > A jury instruction that the destruction of evidence could be considered > fraudulent is bad. An actual charge of spoliation or obstruction is worse. Maybe not. At least with the charge real evidence must be presented. With the simple jury instruction a inference, without chance of rebut mind you, is made. This in effect pre-disposes the jury to consider you guilty. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 20:39:18 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:39:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoliation, escrows, courts etc. In-Reply-To: <3B674089.DFD1C674@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > There are a fairly small set of states to be accounted for : > 1) unaware that the information could become the object of a court > action > 2) aware that the information could become the object of a court action > 3) aware that the information was in fact the object of a court action > > Now my sense of right and wrong says states 1) and 2) are equivalent and > that only state 3), awareness of a subpoena, is potentially relevant but > our relevant pro bono guy says not. Actually I'd say 2 and 3 are equivalent from the perspective of a court, you had reason to suspect (and in the case of 'know' it was simply stronger). > BTW - it will be interesting to actually find out detailed facts in the > case of this TX reporter. I'm sure Jim will graciously forward a link. If'n I run across any...;) -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From unicorn at schloss.li Thu Aug 2 22:41:42 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:41:42 -0700 Subject: Academic and Intellectual Dishonesty in Cypherpunks... Was: Spoliation stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of Ray Dillinger > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:04 PM > Cc: cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com > Subject: Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. > > >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: [On record destruction]: > >> You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they > >> won't be happy. Jim Choate replies: > >And there won't be a damn thing that they can do about it either unless > >they can PROVE you were aware of THE (as opposed to a hypothetical one) > >investigation. Mr. Dillinger retorts: > Wow. You're seriously in denial, you know that? > > Hint: The cites BU provided are *REAL*. > This actually happens, routinely. > > > Bear Jim Choate has been in a filter on my mail which dumps all his posts into a "Junk" folder along with anything containing the words "Get Rich Quick," "Miracle Penis Enlargement" or "The Internet Spy" for at least six weeks. Six wonderfully silent weeks. Every once in a while I see "Choate" sneak through when someone quotes him (the last time was this LSAT business he chickened out of). When I saw this post above I peeked at the "Junk" folder and found a host of legal commentary by Jim Choate, none of which, of course, shows any sign that he has bothered to so much as peek at any of the cases involved, or even bother to read the entirety (or majority) of the content in my posts. It does reaffirm that Mr. Choate not only has no legal credentials or expertise whatsoever but has actually strayed into territory I thought could not possibly exist; specifically: Perfect Legal Anti-Credibility. That is to say that the careful reader can get an awful lot of good legal advice out of Mr. Choate's post by merely reversing all the legal conclusions. The result turns out to be pretty good counsel. Remarkable indeed. As for Mr. Choate's posts, they are all awfully absent and I generally consider Mr. Choate the cypherpunks village idiot of the type who unfortunately lacks any redeeming quality in being amusing enough to provide entertainment. These below, however, convince me that Mr. Choate doesn't really even have any common connection with reality whatsoever: Mr. Choate: > ...the point you and the courts > seem to be jumping right over isn't the 'spoliation' per se but rather the > environment that indicates 'willful' and 'substantial certainty' in the > consequences of those document destructions. It isn't the document > destruction per se but rather your motive to destroy them to hide your > crime. ...and in another post: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > >1) The piece of useful information most easily extracted from this > >thread is that the best defense is that the "evidence" never existed and > >the device lacks the capability of creating it. Is it possible that the > >courts could decide that using or designing a device lacking logging > >features or that compiling a device from source with logging > >capabilities but with those capabilities selectively disabled is in > >itself an act of spoliation? These are acts done without any specific > >knowledge of people, places, things or events likely to be of interest > >to a court. General knowledge of the effects of designing, compiling or > >using such a device might be shown. Mr. Choate replies: > No, they demonstrate that Black Unicorn drops the 'intent' requirement in > his cites when he find it convenient. mmotyka at lsil.com continues: > >2) Most of the cites seem to describe cases involving corporations. Is > >it reasonable to think that while in theory corporations and individuals > >could be treated identically that in practice there are more > >documentation requirements on the part of a corporation, especially in > >the case of one that produces a product that is sold to the public? > >Would the expectations be different for individuals not engaged in > >commercial activities? Mr. Choate comments: > All the cite's require 'intent' in one definition or another to be > specific toward obfuscating the future case. You know you fucked up, now > hide it fast before anybody finds out about it. Oops, didn't hide it fast > enough. Mr. Choate levels the kind of accusations that, in academic circles, would be very severe indeed. I could get pretty upset about this- that is until I remember it's just Mr. Choate. If his credibility credit reports are as anti-accurate as his legal views I take his posts as high compliment on my astounding legal skill and acumen. Mr. Choate insists I have some how "pulled a fast one" by avoiding the discussion of intent, which is implicit as a requirement in all of these cases. This accusation puzzles me intensely. In another of his posts he pretty much insists that I am intentionally omitting key facts from the case cites which would show the severity of the problem is actually far less than what I describe. To wit: > Review BU's cites and then ask yourself this (let's take the doctors > records example specifically)... > > Had the record that was lost been one of a hundred that were lost in a box > would spoliation charges have been filed? Most likely not, because there > was nothing singularly interesting about that record in that context. > > In the other case, it wasn't that the company lost several cars and this > particular one happened to be of interest, but rather that was the only(!) > car that was lost. Had Mr. Choate bothered to look up these cases he would have discovered that the record "loss" in the medical malpractice case (Bondu v. Gurvich) was in fact several records which were lost or otherwise misplaced at the same time of which the plaintiff's were but one. This is admittedly bit difficult to discern from the appeals case, but is clear at the trial court level. With respect to "loss" of the car in Hirsch v. General Motors it is clear to anyone who has spent 10 minutes with the case that the car was sold, as a matter of course, and records of the buyer not available or otherwise "lost." It also came out that this was the practice of the dealership with respect to many used car purchases that were on terms other than financing and that many used cars had been sold under the same circumstances with respect to records and thus "lost" before and since the car in question. As to his accusation that I avoided the intent issue I can only quote myself from the very post which is the subject of his accusation: > If you flesh out the case law on "intent," which I'll do some below, you'll > find that there is no requirement that the investigative proceeding or demand > have been made yet. [...] > In a lovely piece of language on intent with reference to the destruction of > the documents the court also notes: "...intent is broader than a desire or > purpose to bring about physical results. It extends not only to those > consequences which are desired, but also to those which the actor believes are > substantially certain to follow from what the actor does." (More on this > later). [...] > ...also, note the intent > interpretation, applied to spoliation, is articulated better in Lopez v. > Surchia 112 Cal.App.2d 314. A person who acts willfully intends "those > consequences which (a) represent the very purpose for which an act is done > (regardless of the likelihood of occurrence), or (b) are known to be > substantially certain to result (regardless of desire)." On this point See > Also Generally: Perkins on Criminal Law (2d ed.). > > Taking it to the remailer example, sure, your (a) very purpose for which [logs > are routinely erased] is accomplished. to wit: the saving of space time etc. > but it is also (b) known to be substantially certain to result in [the denial > of a court of law's access to the records pertaining to an issue before it]. > Let's face it, remailers are not politically correct animals (all the human > rights and recovery group arguments notwithstanding). A court might well > assign intent to a remailer operator on the basis of this piece of case law, > which is _strongly_ engrained in California jurisprudence incidentally and > used as a major cite in several intent issue arguments. I suppose what surprises me the most (and then again, doesn't considering the source) is that Mr. Choate is (intentionally or unintentionally I'm not quite sure) committing _precisely_ the kind of academic and intellectual dishonesty that he accuses me of in the very act of accusing me of it, specifically outright deleting any reference to my clear (and numerous) discussions of intent to serve his own ends. What's curious is how directly transparent this would be to anyone who bothered to read my posts after Choate's or those of Ms. Farr. What can he hope to accomplish? I suppose woo the court of the lazy? I don't know what to make of this in good faith other than that the medication lapsed at exactly the 3 disparate moments in my post when he caught a bit of intent discussion in my posts. (This seems suspicious to me, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since I believe him to be a very sick man). Of course, Mr. Choate is welcome to provide citations to the cases themselves refuting my interpretations of them if he wishes. Someone will have to forward them to me though because after this I intend to forward all mail with his name on it directly to the trash instead of to the "Junk" purgatory it currently enjoys. From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 2 22:41:46 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:41:46 -0700 Subject: Adversaries Would Find Other Attack Methods, Game Theory Shows In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 2:18 PM -0400 8/2/01, Faustine wrote: >Interesting article, actually. > >I think game theory has the potential to be a powerful tool for any >cypherpunk to have in his or her mental arsenal, (so to speak.) Yes, discussed many times since 1992. Here's but one article on game theory and evolutionary game theory: To: cypherpunks at toad.com * Subject: Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II * From: tcmay at got.net (Timothy C. May) * Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 04:33:12 -0700 * Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As promised in Part I, here is more on the application of Schelling points to the discussion of "rights" (property rights, rights of parents to tell their children what to do, etc.). We saw that Schelling points, as developed by Richard Schelling and others, are essentially "lower entropy" points. (In fact, I suspect there are formulations which involve so-called "maxiumum entropy" methods which would reproduce the theory of Schelling points; Cover and Thomas hint at this in their "Information Theory" book.) How does this apply to rights? Let us take as an example the contentious issue of "parent's rights," "children's rights," and societal issues involving schooling, child abuse, indoctrination into the body politic, citizenship, etc. * Viewpoint #1: Parents have absolute control of what their minor (under some age, usually 18 and/or resident in their homes) children read, watch on t.v., listen to on the radio, etc. They can control the comings and goings of their minor children, whom they may associate with, etc. * Viewpoint #2: Children, even minor children, have certain basic rights to access to information, access to t.v., radio, music, and books. Even access to crypto! * Viewpoint #3: The State and/or Community has an interest in the upbringing of a child and may take steps to direct the education and exposure to information of children, even in contravention of the wishes of parents. There are of course various shadings of these viewpoints. And examples can be found to defend each of these viewpoints, and also to attack them. (For example, what of the Christian Scientist who lets his 5-year-old die of an easily-curable disease because he believes injections are unGodly? What of the 10-year-old who is taught in public schools how to use condoms (or how to clean dirty needles), in contravention of the wishes of the parent?) Cutting to the chase, I submit that nearly all societies have "evolved" an approach that says: -- "While I may think you are raising your child in a way different from how I would raise him, I cannot take over the raising of your child, and I cannot be in your house/tent/cave/yurt at all times, or even at _any_times, so I will basically not interfere unless something really egregious happens." This is a "Schelling point" in the same way that territorial boundaries develop and are mutually adhered to, for the most part. The _costs_ of extending beyond the Schelling point boundaries is deemed to be too high, and the boundary persists. (Boundaries may jump around, as conditions change. And wars still exist to try to imbalance or move the boundaries. Nothing says the Schelling points are fixed in stone, only that the points are not completely random, and that there is a kind of order out of the chaos.) This is summarized in the most important of all Schelling points: "Live and let live." In the absence of a direct threat to one's self or family, and in the absence of other compelling evidence of a need to intervene, much energy and grief is saved by not trying to intervene in the lives of others. (I believe many of the themes we talk about, here and in libertarian circles, come together in this way. The view of John Rawls, that "justice" is that which an ensemble of people of people would pick, even if they did not what station in life they would be born into, closely fits with this Schelling point model.) ObCrypto Sidebar: The "fair" method for dividing a pie between two people is well-known: "You cut, I choose." This *game theory* result is central to many cryptographic protocols (though it may not always be apparent at first). And the protocol can be extended to 3 parties, and proabably to N. Research is ongoing on this, including Cypherpunk Robin Hanson's work at Caltech. My essay here is not a formal, footnoted proof of my claims, naturally. But I believe my claims to be basically correct, and to offer insights into the debate about "rights"...certainly a Schelling point or evolutionary game theory interpretation of what we call "rights" is superior to an appeal-to-God or "natural rights" interpretation. To get back to the issue of children's rights: I will not expend my energies and risk my life to forcibly gain entry to my neighbor's "castle" to make sure his 7-year-old son is able to view "Power Rangers" when his "rights" to do so are denied by his father. Nor will I pay for cops, Child Protective Services, and a powerful bureaucracy to enforce these "rights." Nor will I demand that this parent send his child to the church I deem most appropriate, nor the school I deem most appropriate, etc. That is, "practical and economic" issues lead me to the conclusion that parents basically can tell their minor children what to do, and that only truly egregious cases, such as clear cases of severe beatings, warrant the interference by the State. The same applies to cryptography. While there are dangers with any technology, including cryptographers, most societies have eventually evolved a system in which one is secure in one's home and papers. Orwell's vision of video cameras in all homes (actually, only of the elites, as the "proles" were unmonitored) has not come to pass, and even in nominally totalitarian states like the U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. there was considerable privacy in the home, at least after the worst of the terrors in the 1930-70 period. (I am not endorsing these states, naturally, just noting that even these states had to recognize the Schelling points of (mostly) not trying to send cops into private residences to enforce marginally-important rules.) Forceful advocates of children's rights, such as Mike Duvos, will no doubt find many points to use to argue for intervention on behalf of children. And in some case, I would even agree. But the basic principle, the "right" of a man to control his own castle, and the "right" not to have people nosing around inside his home, and the very real economic point that a parent pays for services and good consumed in his house, means that the balance of rights _must_ be in the direction of Viewpoint #1 above. Parents are free to raise their children as they see fit. They feed and clothe them, they talk to them about ideas and beliefs, they control the television set and the radio channel tuned to, and so forth. This is basic reality. To change this basic reality would require intervention from outside. And this is too high a price to pay for illusory gains. (I say "illusory" because I don't think intervention from outside would produce better-educated children, though it might produce more controllable citizen-units.) This essay has concentrated perhaps too much on "parent's vs. children's rights," but this is what sparked my desire to write an essay on Schelling points and why certain so-called rights appear to have evolved. I believe the game-theoretic and evolutionary approaches, mixed in with economics, offer the most solid grounding for the discussion of rights. Comments, as always, are welcome. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 20:48:06 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:48:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: > At 12:22 PM -0700 7/31/01, Black Unicorn wrote: > > >Not being intimately familiar with the spec of freenet I can't really comment > >on that aspect or what a court will consider "impossible." What will not > >amuse a court is the appearance of an ex ante concealment or disclosure in > >anticipation of court action. If it looks like you knew it was going to be a > >court issue and you put it on freenet for that purpose, you're in trouble. > > I think the cops will _someday_ come to rip my place apart. So? > > Show me exactly which law I am breaking by placing some of my > documents or files in a place even I cannot "turn over all copies > from." > > I have never heard of such a law. There ain't any, at least in the US. When I first setup SSZ on the net I spoke to a couple of lawyers about 'records retention' and system operation with respect to potential future prosecution. It had more to do with customer litigation than something like cpunks, but after (peripheraly) going through the SJG thing why take chances? Bottom line, there ain't none, so I don't keep none. The fact that one of these reasons is so that I'm not collecting potential evidence for my prosecution is not condeming nor is it relevant in and of itself to future prosecutions. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 20:56:23 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:56:23 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: <002501c11a49$7e78b820$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > Still, based on what you seem to have read me as saying we probably lost a > good deal of the context of the discussion. The original question, as I > understood it, was what an individual who was faced with a clearly pending > court action (or an existing court order) could to do frustrate that order and > prevent certain materials from being distributed- _without consequences_. > My discussion was limited to that context, though I did not probably clarify > that sufficiently. You should borrow Sandy's bicycle. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 20:59:39 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:59:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. > STORE: "Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my > desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are gone". > > You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be > happy. And there won't be a damn thing that they can do about it either unless they can PROVE you were aware of THE (as opposed to a hypothetical one) investigation. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 21:02:50 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:02:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. In-Reply-To: <192cbd3272c5f97f5ca5f955a1ed041d@dizum.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Perhaps I miss your point. Is your statement intended as a > condemnation of the U.S. legal system? Which legal systems do you > believe are about justice, right, and wrong? None. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 21:06:47 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:06:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > Exactly so. This list, like so many other lists, is gradually moving > toward "public politics" and "the law" as the focus of many members. > > The "public politics" part is obvious: discussions of boycotts of > Adobe, letter-writing campaigns to Washington, complaining about > Ashcroft and Feinstein and all of the other vermin, and hand-wringing > about the need for different laws. > > The "law" part is about the above, and exhortations by the lawyers > here (5, by my count) about what one mustn't do, how courts will > react, the need to be scrupulously legal in all of one's actions, etc. > > "Laws of mathematics, not men." > > We risk becoming just a pale--a very, very pale!--imitation of the > Cyberia-L list. Not while I'm around there ain't... http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18 -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 21:09:13 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:09:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > As a probable member of Tim's "Gang of Five" I am on the cusp between two > equally true facts about Cypherpunk "ideology" and the law. > > 1) "Cypherpunks write code." This metaphorical admonition tells us to make > the laws irrelevant by outrunning them with technology. I couldn't agree > more. I don't see much benefit in asking the nice lawmakers to do fuck us > so badly, please. Better to take steps that put us outside of their reach. Code is 'law', just a different kind. > 2) "Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time." You have to know > what the law is likely to do so that you can "write code" in a manner that > is likely to be the most effective from a technological AND legal view. > Otherwise, you cannot do any sort of meaningful risk/benefit analysis. Know your enemies mind is one of Tszu's first admonitions. > My point is that there is a middle ground between Unicorn and Tim's > positions. Do the Cypherpunk thing, but be cognizant of the relevant laws. > Remember, lawyers are hackers too, just in a different arena. Wanna be hackers considering the quality of their work. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pth at ibuc.com Thu Aug 2 23:15:54 2001 From: pth at ibuc.com (Paul Harrison) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:15:54 -0700 Subject: Too much time on their hands up in the North Woods Message-ID: The boyz at Dartmouth's PKI Lab have been playing with JavaScript. The results are troubling in an "E-Qold" kind of way. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~pkilab/demos/spoofing/tr.pdf By painting over the location and status bars of typical wintel browsers, and using javascript's pop-up window capability they are able to spoof an SSL session, without even duping Verisign into giving them a bogus cert. The effort is painstaking but the results apparently slick. Picks up from Felton's seminal work (since deprecated). I like this for Verified by Visa 3-D Secure applications: "Hello, this is the FleetBankBoston VISA Verifier popup. Please type your password in this secure window now.....Thank you, and remember, NEVER share your password. Have a nice day!" Not discussed, but important to the discerning bad-guy's tool kit is the "proxy-spoof." This is a webserver which has a home page which looks like, say, Amazon.com but isn't. For every click you make it runs off to Amazon, gets the page, replaces all the Amazon links with spoofed links to itself, then forwards the page on to you. In this fashion, you get theAmazon experience right on through until you click "Buy" and whip out your credit card. The attacker has been in charge of your connection for the entire site visit, but only then does it get smart and start rendering ersatz images. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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 Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 21:16:34 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:16:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civility. Was: Re: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: <001001c11ade$c1118fa0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > For spoliation as an independent cause of action in tort (not to mention the > criminal sanctions that can attach through obstruction) See: Bondu v. Gurvich, > 473 So.2d 1307 (1985). Medical malpractice case in which court rules that the > loss (not destruction) of medical records related to the claim constituted > spoliation of evidence. (Note: no willful destruction was shown, mere > negligence and the records were "lost" by actions prior to the commencement of > the proceedings). I'll bet there was more than simple 'loss' with regard to the records. I'll bet there was other evidence indicating 'intent'. > See also: Hirsch v. General Motors, 628 A.2d 1108 (1993). > Products liability case- vehicle caught fire, was refurbished, sold, then > "lost" to an unknown purchaser. Only then did Plaintiffs file a suit against > General Motors and the dealer who sold them the car. Court held the "loss" of > the car constituted spoliation of evidence. (Note that no proceeding for > products liability had been pending when the car was resold). Ditto. > Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in > whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made > under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, > removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or > by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written > interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or > attempts to do so or solicits another to do so... [blah blah blah...] shall be > fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." There's that 'intent' word again.... The test is not that somebody lost or destroyed something that eventualy became evidence, but that the intended to do so. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 2 23:18:31 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:18:31 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net> References: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net> Message-ID: At 9:02 PM -0500 8/2/01, Harmon Seaver wrote: > I think you're getting a little off-track here --- the original >discussion was about whether the court could make the journalist turn >over *all copies* of a document. She wasn't trying to destroy them to >hide anything, > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all >your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it --- the interesting >question is whether or not they can somehow expect you to turn over >*all* copies of a document you've published on freenet or mojo. And >whether they are encrypted or not is irrelevant. > Although really, the most serious question everyone should be >asking is why the court wants "all" copies. Because thoughtcrime has occurred. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 21:21:36 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:21:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: No subject In-Reply-To: <00a901c11ae6$94c6a090$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > See my (huge) posting on this, but I would suspect that this isn't great. > Were I operating one, which I am admittedly not, I'd want there to be no data > of evidentiary value ever hitting my memory or media. To some degree that's > not possible. In the alternative, actually _disabling_ logging is the best > policy, in my view. The evidence never existed in the first place then. It > suddenly becomes a challenge to show some kind of conspiracy on your part > since the actual spoliation claim is harder to make. Showing conspiracy for > anything with respect to either probably starts hard and gets marginally less > hard in this order: Sure the evidence existed, it just wasn't written to another file, you routinely spoliate the primary source data UNLESS you turn logging on. Intentionaly turning off logging certainly shows 'intent' which is all that the cites you've provided require. Now 'conspiracy' would require a second (or more) parties to be involved to be relevent. Watch that rock, there's a hard place on the other side... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Thu Aug 2 20:28:57 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:28:57 -0400 Subject: $500 CAR BONUS and FREE VACATION!! Message-ID: <200108030328.XAA29280@www.infogeneratorpro.com> My Dear Friend - Friend- In the recent weeks you inquired about a WORK AT HOME OPPORTUNITY that could put you on the path to FINANCIAL FREEDOM. Well The good News is not only do I have the Business for you BUT, my business will also pay you between $300 & $700 a month in a CAR BONUS and Send you on an all expense paid Vacation each year for two! Would you like a CAR BONUS and a VACATION? Would you like a 5 figure monthly 12 months from now? Would you like to Get Paid Every Day? Would you like A Residual Income For Life? Well it is yours for the taking! CAll Me Directly Today so we can discuss in detail and get you started in the right direction!! Looking forward to hearing from you personally if you are SERIOUS! You're Friend, Greg 1-888-785-0135 Ext. 80 P.s IF you want me to call you simply send me an email at mybigcheck at yahoo.com and put "CAR BONUS" in the subject heading and your phone number in the body with best time to call. You're Monthly Incentive: CAR BONUS and FREE VACATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from this list: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe Remove yourself from all lists at InfoGeneratorPRO: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe_all Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 21:30:52 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:30:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A10C5.4128176D@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > I have a few, hopefully not useless or inflammatory, comments. > > 1) The piece of useful information most easily extracted from this > thread is that the best defense is that the "evidence" never existed and > the device lacks the capability of creating it. Is it possible that the > courts could decide that using or designing a device lacking logging > features or that compiling a device from source with logging > capabilities but with those capabilities selectively disabled is in > itself an act of spoliation? These are acts done without any specific > knowledge of people, places, things or events likely to be of interest > to a court. General knowledge of the effects of designing, compiling or > using such a device might be shown. No, they demonstrate that Black Unicorn drops the 'intent' requirement in his cites when he find it convenient. > 1a) Isn't there a PA statute prohibiting altering the headers on a > communication? No, as far as I'm aware there is nothing that prevents the operator of a system from munging the packets that hit his NIC as they see fit. > 1b) Could a remailer be declared to be a common carrier and subject to > CALEA? Not without a significant change in the laws for 'common carrier'. > 1c) Could a remailer operator be compelled to add or enable logging > features without notifying users? No, they can't even be compelled to continue operation of the remailer. Though it could be 'confiscated' and operated by the LEA's and courts. > 2) Most of the cites seem to describe cases involving corporations. Is > it reasonable to think that while in theory corporations and individuals > could be treated identically that in practice there are more > documentation requirements on the part of a corporation, especially in > the case of one that produces a product that is sold to the public? > Would the expectations be different for individuals not engaged in > commercial activities? All the cite's require 'intent' in one definition or another to be specific toward obfuscating the future case. You know you fucked up, now hide it fast before anybody finds out about it. Oops, didn't hide it fast enough. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 21:34:10 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:34:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There was some discussion a while back (check the archives since I probably sent a URL) about how 'the law' was being buried in copyrighted archives that were unavailable to the 'common man'... Just another example of how fucked up the courts and law in general in this country is. On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > A worthwhile question for Cypherpunks -- all of the court decisions > and cites are, technically, public domain information. And yet > access to that information, in terms of legal databases, remains > either extremely expensive, or the province of a Priveleged Caste > (to whom "extremely expensive" looks like "normal business expenses"). > > Westlaw owns some of the most expensive copyrights, per-copy, of > any entity -- and all they've done is number the pages and paragraphs > and provide an index on public domain information. > > I think that there is, or ought to be, a good cypherpunk solution > to making legal cites available for everyone. A distributed > law library, hosted on many servers? Legal cites on Freenet? > > After all, what good is crypto anarchy if we can't break a copyright > monopoly (or at least a case of non-competitive pricing) imposed on > public domain information? -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 2 23:36:01 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:36:01 -0700 Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B69E3E1.29429.513BA5@localhost> -- On 2 Aug 2001, at 21:04, Ray Dillinger wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > > > >> SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. > >> STORE: "Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my > >> desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are gone". > >> > >> You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be > >> happy. > > > >And there won't be a damn thing that they can do about it either unless > >they can PROVE you were aware of THE (as opposed to a hypothetical one) > >investigation. > > Wow. You're seriously in denial, you know that? > > Hint: The cites BU provided are *REAL*. > This actually happens, routinely. No they are not real, and this does not happen routinely. I recall that at the time many people commented that had Nixon publically burnt the tapes on the whitehous lawn shortly after their existence had become known, and before certain legal steps were taken to obtain them, this would have been just fine. The fact that Black Unicorn and othes have provided irrelevant citations is pretty good evidence that no genuine citations exist. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG NksXX+cNhwnrt4r2mUqRDb8LjWJ6I4njoxilO5C5 4ADGWoawn1pTS+9vuAwsy3KT+Dnjm4gv/mHfZoEDH From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 2 23:36:01 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:36:01 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <3B69E3E1.17627.513BAF@localhost> -- On 2 Aug 2001, at 19:22, Black Unicorn wrote: > I'm not sure where you have been over the last 48 hours but > clearly you've not been paying attention. > > Courts _clearly_ have the ability to demand the production of > all copies and originals of a document. They have merely to > order it. They _clearly_ have the ability to smack a gag order > on also. The rest of us settled that question some time ago. Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep." Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?" --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Ywjj3CtTk6RG7TphPed4xvIXTirRoD963mVFppiD 4TMWUCKCfJEEAWFbqK8FpPS6l0wcp2jR1FTlka85H From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 2 23:36:01 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:36:01 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B69E3E1.14134.513B9B@localhost> On 2 -- On 2 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Aimee Farr wrote: [...] (under ' 1503, documents destroyed do not have to > be under subpoena; it is sufficient if the defendant is aware that the grand > jury will likely seek the documents in its investigation); \All these citations obviously refer to situations where the case is already under way, and are thus irrelevant to the claims made by Black Unicorn. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG kd0oj5fW/o0EwOuuRzu0rlgeZRTBEVnHnrOlq6Ym 4GYnFP1LaTnH+jnHwsBZ1Ad41opi6PXN0S+xhyaK8 From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 2 23:36:01 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:36:01 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: References: <3bd64a4c18b7a435db97f60526b2b8d0@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: <3B69E3E1.11548.513BB9@localhost> -- On 2 Aug 2001, at 20:53, Ray Dillinger wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, An Metet wrote: > > >Your complaints about "free research" suggest that you have the sense > >that you are more valuable than or superior to other contributors. > > He is not "superior" in any substantial way; however, his expertise > in law, combined with a willingness to actually discuss it, are in > short supply here. He is a nym. We do not know his actual qualifications. From what he has posted here, I am not impressed. Perhaps he has expertise in some areas of laws. He lacks expertise on the topics that he has posted on. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG OMtuw8KyojUVkoSLXcaUr9jcdfS6Ex5qFnDM4AZa 4Wun79YkjX1Ca45FgxaO60zY96XH18ZqFCQKa3xH2 From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 21:38:58 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:38:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoilation, escrows, courts, pigs. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > >On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > > > >> SBOE: We'd like to see your sales records for 1997-1999. > >> STORE: "Sorry, can't do that, see there was this *really* weird fire on my > >> desk last night, and wouldn't you know, all those records are gone". > >> > >> You're going to be talking to a judge about this, and no, they won't be > >> happy. > > > >And there won't be a damn thing that they can do about it either unless > >they can PROVE you were aware of THE (as opposed to a hypothetical one) > >investigation. > > Wow. You're seriously in denial, you know that? > > Hint: The cites BU provided are *REAL*. > This actually happens, routinely. Yes, the cites are real. Yes, every(!) one of them requires 'intent' to be linked to the article in question and the potential of a future legal action. In every cite that BU provided you'll find additional material if researched which provides proof of 'intent' with respect to the 'loss of evidence'. In other words, it wasn't a matter of policy per se, but rather an intentional use of policy with respect to a SPECIFIC piece of evidence. BU's argument falls down when the policy applied to ALL 'evidence'. A MAJOR distinction. No, it isn't routine by any definition. I'd be surprised if it was in the double digits percentage wise. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From empresas at cable.net.co Thu Aug 2 21:55:20 2001 From: empresas at cable.net.co (Empresas) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:55:20 -0500 Subject: Base de Datos - 1.000 Empresas Message-ID: <237230-2200185345520970@cable.net.co> EMPRESAS - Base de datos con las 1.000 Empresas m�s grandes de Colombia (ventas superiores a $20.000 millones anuales), con los siguientes campos: raz�n social, sigla, Nit, direcci�n, tel�fono, fax, actividad empresarial (c�digo CIIU Rev. 3.0), n�mero de empleados, ciudad y departamento, cifras de Activos, Patrimonio, Ventas y Utilidad para los �ltimos cinco a�os (Incluye cifras del a�o 2.000). Adicional a esta base se encuentra la base de datos de directivos y ejecutivos de estas empresas (m�s de 9.500), con los siguientes campos: nombre, cargo, �rea por cargos, direcci�n, tel�fono y fax. Estas bases de datos se encuentran relacionadas, la APLICACION que las maneja permite hacer b�squedas simples o complejas por todos los campos, agrupa diferentes tipos de b�squedas, prepara e imprime reportes, r�tulos y cartas, hace llamadas telef�nicas y env�a email's. La aplicaci�n es totalmente aut�noma, es decir no necesita ning�n software adicional para su total desempe�o en Windows 95 o superior. COMO VALOR AGREGADO le damos acceso a toda la informaci�n sobre COMERCIO EXTERIOR (27.000 importadores y 4.000 exportadores), a trav�s de enlaces V�a Internet a MINCOMEX, PROEXPORT Y LA COMUNIDAD ANDINA. Tambi�n le facilitamos la conexi�n a sus propios enlaces. PRESENTACION - Las bases de datos y la aplicaci�n se entregan en un CD, que permite la auto-instalaci�n. VALOR DEL CD - Col$100.000, los cuales se deben depositar en COLMENA en la cuenta de ahorros No. 0114500194215 a nombre de Directorio Nacional de Fax, copia de la consignaci�n con las instrucciones de entrega enviarlas al Fax 6178102/6179073 Bogot� y el CD y la factura ser�n enviados al d�a siguiente v�a Servientrega. Si ya adquiri� la versi�n 500 Empresas deposite �nicamente Col$50.000 Empresas - Tr. 51A No 123-01 Int. 10 - Tel. 6135184 - Fax 6178102/6179073 - empresas at elsitio.net.co - Bogot� Colombia Si desea ser removido de esta base de datos, responda a este mensaje indicando - remover - en el subject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 9241 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 272 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 22:04:35 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:04:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The real enemies of the poor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > In this context I meant "personality" as in demeanor and attitude, not > scholarship and competence. Opposite sides of the same coin... > >Your waste of time is somebodies > >jewel of the Nile (I have these images of Creationist books I've read > >flashing through my mind, very unpleasant). > > So do you keep on finding more of the same or have you got on to something > of more value to you? I keep hoping I'll run across a 'new' creationist theory, but they all boil down to the same old same old. I don't remember the last time I finished one of the books . Of course the same can be said about most books, technical or not. And no, I'm not a creationist of any bent outside of the pantheist sort (ie Gaia). I'd say that only about 10% of all books are worth reading. Of those 10%, 90% of their content is wrong (and hence interesting in the sense of why they are wrong)..which really gets down to the crux of the matter for me. Not why they got it right, but why they failed. Unfortunately most readers focus on what they like, the positive aspect of the experience, and not the negative. Which from an analytic/comprehension perspective is a stronger viewpoint (or at least seems so to me). > >And there's looking for corroborating evidence... :) > > Well we all do whether we intend to or not: no matter how much you try > there's no getting out from under your experience. I disagree, see Newtons comments about hypothesis and playing with stones on a beach. > but to avoid re-inventing the wheel. "If I have seen further than > others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." you know? That's not what he meant by that. He was saying that what he did was not in and of itself his creation. He was objecting to credit being given the 'Lion of England' when it wasn't the Lion's due (why in his later life he began to publish anonymously). Unfortunately this can't be said of most people. Most people will take credit for whatever they can and then advertise it widely. One of the most popular strategies is to 'let them think it was their idea'. > Recommending books, on the other hand, has to do with getting people to > share an aspect of your mental context. Like that book I recommended on > MOUT awhile back: it's not that I agree with its conclusions or the > ideology behind it--it's just that it made a powerful impression on the way > I think about some of the issues that are most important to me, and went a > long way toward providing valuable information I didn't already have. Why > wouldn't I be interested in spreading it around. I'm not saying you shouldn't spread it around. I disagree on your 'mental context'. I don't suggest that another person should read a book to understand me per se, but rather to escape the singular view point we all have. For me, the best thing that could happen is that somebody else read it and comes to a different conclusion. It is the dialog that follows that gives the book worth. Something greater than the authors intent, or my own personality happens then. The problem is that many equate reading (even a lot) with understanding, and in actuality too few people question vigorously enough to ever really 'understand' anything. It's not uncommon in our society to hear people say 'He said ...' but they themselves can't explain it in their own terms and context. They can regurgitate, they can't cogitate. Dogma and pedantry. It's why 'arguments from authority are useless' is such a strong tool with respect to deductive/synthetic analysis. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 00:09:54 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:09:54 -0700 Subject: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> Message-ID: C'punks, So by my count it looks as though we are now up to at least THREE village idiots. Each convinced that he knows the law (not in theory, but as practiced in reality) better than the lawyers. There's a small black part of me that REALLY would enjoy seeing these three arrogantly childish ignoramuses in the docket, pissing their pants when the macho flash wears thin. Hey Jimbo, that LSAT "easy money" is still waiting for you to grow a pair. S a n d y From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 22:10:00 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:10:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoliation and intent Message-ID: BU provided two cases, lost doctors records and a car. In both cases spoliation occurred not because records in general (or cars in general) are lost but because those specific ones were lost. They were in effect unique. It goes back to 'intent'. Review BU's cites and then ask yourself this (let's take the doctors records example specifically)... Had the record that was lost been one of a hundred that were lost in a box would spoliation charges have been filed? Most likely not, because there was nothing singularly interesting about that record in that context. In the other case, it wasn't that the company lost several cars and this particular one happened to be of interest, but rather that was the only(!) car that was lost. In both of these cites it was the singularity of the loss that spoke to intent and spoliation. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 00:11:49 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:11:49 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> References: <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> Message-ID: At 1:49 AM -0500 8/3/01, Harmon Seaver wrote: >Black Unicorn wrote: > >> I'm not sure where you have been over the last 48 hours but clearly >you've >> not been paying attention. >> > > Actually, I have. > >> >> Courts _clearly_ have the ability to demand the production of all >copies and >> originals of a document. They have merely to order it. A court may "order" the production of all copies and the original(s) of "Wind Done Gone," but if copies have already been sold anonymously and untraceably to the public, as is the norm with book sales even today, the issue is moot. The situation of publishing a book is analogous to distributing on Freenet: once the copies are out there, they are not retrievable by the releasor. (The court may wish to employ tens of thousands of JBTs to visit every home in America, not to mention Europe and elsewhere, in an attempt to seize all copies, but it is clearly beyond the power of the author to retrieve these copies.) Claims that releasing something in a form which may not practically (in the strongest sense of the word!) be retrieved is some kind of "spoliation" are bizarre. The claim that distributing via Freenet or Mojo or Usenet, systems which are similar to ordinary publishing in the sense that retrieval after distribution is nearly impossible, is also bizarre. BU has said I should pay him for his research. Laughable. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From shamrock at cypherpunks.to Fri Aug 3 00:20:47 2001 From: shamrock at cypherpunks.to (Lucky Green) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:20:47 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ray wrote: > [...] as one who > is not of the Priveleged Caste in terms of access to legal information, > (ie, willing to pay thousands of bucks to Westlaw or whoever each > year) I am grateful to him for passing it on. There are Cypherpunks without a Westlaw or LEXIS login? The mind boggles... --Lucky From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 22:20:54 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:20:54 -0500 Subject: OPT: I, Cringely | The Pulpit - The Death of TCP/IP Message-ID: <3B6A34B6.43DD39DE@ssz.com> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 22:31:44 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:31:44 -0500 Subject: UPI News Article: Tampa City Council votes to keep cameras Message-ID: <3B6A3740.EAB60D57@ssz.com> http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=208325 The 4th now only applies to private property in Fla. apparently... -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 2 22:33:06 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:33:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: NSA's new mode of operation broken in less than 24 hours (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:40:32 -0300 From: "Paulo S. L. M. Barreto" To: coderpunks at toad.com Subject: NSA's new mode of operation broken in less than 24 hours NSA has recently convinced NIST to include a new algorithm - something they dubbed "Double Counter" mode after 18 months of development - for consideration as a possible standard mode of operation for the AES. It's described at , but I wouldn't bother reading it now had I not done it already. The new mode seems to have been reduced to bits by Phillip Rogaway, David Wagner and others. Could it be that the NSA is losing its proverbial cryptologic skills? For one can't help but conclude that, if they acted in good faith to provide a useful mode, then they did a very poor job, and if they acted otherwise, then they quite underestimate current public knowledge in the area. Paulo Barreto. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 2 23:06:59 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:06:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Adversaries Would Find Other Attack Methods, Game , Theory , Shows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > How does this apply to rights? > > Let us take as an example the contentious issue of "parent's rights," > "children's rights," and societal issues involving schooling, child abuse, > indoctrination into the body politic, citizenship, etc. > > * Viewpoint #1: Parents have absolute control of what their minor (under > some age, usually 18 and/or resident in their homes) children read, watch > on t.v., listen to on the radio, etc. They can control the comings and > goings of their minor children, whom they may associate with, etc. Specious, 'control of' is not 'responsible for', neither does 'right to decide for' equate to 'absolute control of'. > * Viewpoint #2: Children, even minor children, have certain basic rights to > access to information, access to t.v., radio, music, and books. Even access > to crypto! If for no other reason that you can't control a child 24/7 unless you do something like stick them in a closet. The consequences of this (as exemplified by regular CNN cover stories) are easily understood, the child is removed from the parent. > * Viewpoint #3: The State and/or Community has an interest in the > upbringing of a child and may take steps to direct the education and > exposure to information of children, even in contravention of the wishes of > parents. See responce to #2, only if it can be shown that to do otherwise would harm the child. For example, children must attend school, but it doesn't have to be a public school, and it doesn't have to be a private school. > There are of course various shadings of these viewpoints. No, there is only one position with multiple facets. Your attempt at dissecting them into orthogonal componants is what is at fault. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 2 23:10:39 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:10:39 -0500 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: <3bd64a4c18b7a435db97f60526b2b8d0@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: I think Uni was merely making a humorous note on Tim's prodding him to brief. I detected a sly grin. ~Aimee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of An Metet > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:10 PM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, > civilit > > > Black Unicorn, esquire, wrote: > > (Lesson for other posters- to get legal research for free out of > > Uni, just insult him a lot)... > > > > ...Seriously interested researchers will spend time at the library, > > look up statutes and learn to Shepardize. I happened to be at the > > law library for an unrelated matter so I wasted 90 minutes looking > > this silliness up for you and the list Mr. May. I herewith submit > > my invoice, payable on receipt, for more civil treatment, for > > services rendered. > > Many people on and off this list have spent a lot more than 90 minutes > researching things, writing posts, writing code, solving math > problems, etc., etc. Tim May in particular has written thousands of > pages of high quality or entertaining work. > > Your complaints about "free research" suggest that you have the sense > that you are more valuable than or superior to other contributors. > While this is couched in civility, one could conclude that this is an > insult, something along the lines of "of course geeks should work for > free, but I'm a lawyer!" It's a free world, but it might work better > not to insult people, even if the insult is slightly veiled. > > (Your spoliation posts have been interesting. Thank you for writing > them.) From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 2 23:10:50 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:10:50 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A10C5.4128176D@lsil.com> Message-ID: Mike wrote: Good questions, Mike. Especially this one: > 2) Most of the cites seem to describe cases involving corporations. Is > it reasonable to think that while in theory corporations and individuals > could be treated identically that in practice there are more > documentation requirements on the part of a corporation, especially in > the case of one that produces a product that is sold to the public? > Would the expectations be different for individuals not engaged in > commercial activities? ~Aimee From cacher69 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 01:25:52 2001 From: cacher69 at hotmail.com (cacher69 at hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:25:52 Subject: Check This Out !!!!!!!!! Message-ID: <827.23613.236666@hotmail.com> Dear Friends & Future Millionaire: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home foran investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time THANK'S TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! ================================================== BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! Before you say ''Bull'', please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal.Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can - follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only$25 out of pocket cost''. DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER.This is what one had to say: ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in."Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. =================================================== Here is another testimonial: "This program has been around for a longtime but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa ..... 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything.'' More testimonials later but first, ===== PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE ====== $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS :=====Order all 5 reports shown on the list below ===== For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. .=== When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports.You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00.Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. IMPORTANT - DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what isinstructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will loose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives nam! es on all five thinking they could get all the money.But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what isinstructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you.Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune From hseaver at ameritech.net Thu Aug 2 23:49:41 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 01:49:41 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites References: Message-ID: <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> Black Unicorn wrote: > I'm not sure where you have been over the last 48 hours but clearly you've > not been paying attention. > Actually, I have. > > Courts _clearly_ have the ability to demand the production of all copies and > originals of a document. They have merely to order it. Really? So some senile asshole orders it. I give him ten copies. So then what? Oh, there's more? How many? All? How many is "all"? Okay, here's ten more. Prove that's not "all". > They _clearly_ have > the ability to smack a gag order on also. The rest of us settled that > question some time ago. Hmm --- no, you decided it was settled to your satisfaction. > > > > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all > > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it. > > Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point > you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the > opposite of what you claim above. Cases dealing with corporations who naturally keep lots of records, files, etc. This was about a journalist, one entity, who probably keeps about the same number of grocery store receipts as the rest of us, like zero. > (I didn't see a legal background on your > resume either but perhaps you have any cites that I don't know about?) Hmm, sorry. IANAL. But I have spent one heck of a lot of time in Gov. docs reading statute and case law. Not that it matters -- this is really more about justice and common sense. Common sense dictates that I'd produce -- if ordered to hand over the "original and all copies" of my own work -- the "original" and maybe 2 copies, then bogey to another jurisdiction and anonymously spam the whole world with whatever they were trying to suppress. > > > > --- the interesting > > question is whether or not they can somehow expect you to turn over > > *all* copies of a document you've published on freenet or mojo. And > > whether they are encrypted or not is irrelevant. > > Now I'm beginning to regret responding to this post at all because it's > painfully clear that you just haven't got a good grip on this issue. I think I've got an extremely good grip on the issue -- it's you who are doing your utmost to muddy the waters and take everyone's mind off the real issue. Who gives a fast flying fuck what this asshole judge, or any other scumbag court has to say when they are trying to suppress the truth? > Had > you been reading you'd have known the answer to this, and why encryption or > non-encryption was important about 40 posts ago. All I've seen from you is a whole lot of BS plainly intended to obscure the real issue. Cite whatever you want --- it's totally irrelevant. People need to learn about their options. Cite us the case of the villagers in Latin America who hacked a judge to death with machetes -- that's much more relevant. > > > > Although really, the most serious question everyone should be > > asking is why the court wants "all" copies. > > Asked and answered. Asked, but not answered. The only possible answer is that it's a crooked judge who wants to suppress the truth. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From nobody at mix.winterorbit.com Thu Aug 2 18:32:23 2001 From: nobody at mix.winterorbit.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 03:32:23 +0200 Subject: Pi Message-ID: <18c8215506ee251f97befa4e33059596@mix.winterorbit.com> Eric Cordian wrote: > Of cryptographic interest. > > "While there may be no cosmic message lurking in pi's digits, if they are > random they could be used to encrypt other messages as follows: > > "Convert a message into zeros and ones, choose a string of digits > somewhere in the decimal expansion of pi, and encode the message by > adding the digits of pi to the digits of the message string, one after > another. Only a person who knows the chosen starting point in pi's > expansion will be able to decode the message." This would let us "whiten" entropy with confidence. Now we just assume without really knowing that feeding everything through SHA1 is a good idea; that is, the mapping of input strings to the resulting hash string is even. (This is different from the "can't find a collision" property. Even if that property doesn't hold, so long as the probability of each resulting hash is about the same, it will work fine as an entropy whitener.) The term "random" may be misleading. What they are likely close to proving is that the occurences of any given string of bits is evenly distributed. This does not mean it is a good encryption algorithm. For example, if it turns out that given a sequence of bits it's easy to find the places in pi where they appear, you have a good known plaintext attack. However, if in addition it was shown to be impossible to do this, we would have something neat and very important - a provably strong encryption algorithm. My guess is that this is a ways off, if it's even possible. From mob at mbox301.swipnet.se Thu Aug 2 19:05:06 2001 From: mob at mbox301.swipnet.se (Mats O. Bergstrom) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 04:05:06 +0200 Subject: New (?) tric(k) for Internet Partitioning Message-ID: <4.1.20010803040217.0093b180@zebra.swip.net> This Swedish entity believes it has found the solution (patented) to the long standing problem of effortless micropayments for web content. The solution is - skip micropayments! - but let the ISP´s pay tax to the content providers, the amount calculated from the size of the ISP's customer base, regardless of which sites the particular ISP customers actually visit. So you need a World Association of Approved Content Providers (WAACP) to share the tax profits. The tric(k) seems to be a method of technically denying access to sites in the WADCP domain to users who's ISP is not paying the taxes. One big problem is that providers of Not PC Content naturally will be barred from the WADCP. Even if it won't help the MS Masses it would be a gift if their system were crackable. //mob http://www.tric.com/ From FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com Fri Aug 3 01:47:10 2001 From: FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com (Your Membership Newsletter) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your Membership Community & Commentary, 08-03-01 Message-ID: <20010803084710.E11A930021@rovdb001.roving.com> Your Membership Community & Commentary (August 3, 2001) It's All About Making Money Information to provide you with the absolute best low and no cost ways of providing traffic to your site, helping you to capitalize on the power and potential the web brings to every Net-Preneur. --- This Issue Contains Sites Who Will Trade Links With You! --- ------------- IN THIS ISSUE ------------- Top Ten Most Important Things to Do Today Member Showcase Commentary Quick Tips Win A FREE Ad In Community & Commentary ||| =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>> Today's Special Announcement: ||| =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>> Right now, this week only - We have left over inventory, it's unsold, but not for long. If you could use 1 million banner ads all targeted and dirt cheap go here today. This package is guaranteed!! It's tough to fail when you can show your ad to 1,000 people for less than a buck! A free custom banner will be made for you with this deal! http://BannersGoMLM.com/promo/million-nl.html ||| =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>> You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Top Ten Most Important Things to Do Today =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Top Ten Most Important Things to Do Today By Michael E. Angier This is my list. They're the ones I've selected for my life at present. Consider them suggestions for yourself--ideas to help you generate your own top ten list. By getting clear on and acting upon YOUR most important steps, you'll be moving toward and experiencing your highest and best. 1. Practice gratefulness. Reflect upon the things in my life for which I'm grateful. If I appreciate more of what I have, I will have even more to appreciate. 2. Write out my three most important goals and visualize how my life will be when I have achieved them. FEEL it. EXPERIENCE it in as much sensory detail as I can possibly imagine. 3. Take some action steps toward each of the three goals. 4. Exercise my body and monitor carefully what I eat and drink. Reduce fat and caloric intake while expending more calories. Eat only small amounts at one time. 5. Read something educational, inspirational or entertaining--preferably all three. 6. Meditate. Empty my conscious mind and listen to the Super-conscious. 7. Have fun doing something I love to do. Experience joy. 8. Write something--anything. If not an article or part of my book, then write in my journal. 9. Perform some act of kindness. Do a thoughtful, magnanimous thing--anonymously if possible. 10. Finish something. Do something I can call complete. Bonus Step: Make something work better -- Practice ADS: Automate, Delegate and Systemize. Copyright 2001 Michael Angier & Success Networks International. ------------------------------------- About the Author... Michael Angier is the founder and president of Success Networks. Success Net's mission is to inform, inspire and empower people to be their best--personally and professionally. Download their free eBooklet, KEYS TO PERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS from http://www.SuccessNet.org/keys.htm. Free subscriptions, memberships, books and SuccessMark Cards are available at http://www.SuccessNet.org =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Member Showcase =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Examine carefully - Those with email addresses included WILL TRADE LINKS with you... You are encouraged to contact them. There Are Many Ways To Build A Successful Business - Just look at these successful sites & programs other members are involved in... ------------------------------------------------- ******** FREE CD-Rom Software ********* Over 1000 high quality software titles on CD-ROM absolutely FREE! YES, the software is free, (s/h) Click Here: http://www.adreporting.com/at.cgi?a=156074&e=/2/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stop Smoking - Free Lesson !! Discover the Secret to Stopping Smoking. To Master these Powerful Techniques, Come to http://www.breath-of-life.net for your Free Lesson. Act Now! P.S. Tell someone you care about. Trade Links - jturco3 at hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- For a limited time only, we are offering --TWO-- FREE eBooks to show you how to MAKE MONEY ON THE INTERNET! Use our PROVEN, DUPLICATABLE methods to get in on this EXPLODING opportunity now! Visit us at: http://www.Abundance-Group.com to collect your FREE offers! Trade Links - Gina at AbundanceGroup.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Without Debt! What would you do with 5,000 10,000 20,000 100,000? A "Dream Team" of heavy hitters are gathering to promote Life Without Debt. Get in NOW to receive Massive spillover in the 2x matrix. http://trafficentral.com/lwd/index.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- If you have a product, service, opportunity or quality merchandise that appeals to people worldwide, reach your targeted audience! For a fraction of what other large newsletters charge you can exhibit your website here, and trade links for only $8 CPM.  Compare that to the industry average of $10-$15 CPM. Why?... Because as a valuable member we want you to be successful! Order today - Showcases are limited and published on a first come, first serve basis. For our secure order form, click here: http://bannersgomlm.com/ezine =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Commentary Quick Tips =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Website Recommendation: Here is a site with some useful tips. Example - test your Internet connection speed. http://www.camscape.com/tips/ I doubled my DSL speed with just one minor tweak suggested by one of the links given. Submitted by F. Knopke imco at telusplanet.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do you have a marketing hint, product recommendation, or online gem of wisdom you'd like to share with your fellow subscribers? With your 2 - 10 line Quick Tip include your name and URL or email address and we'll give you credit for your words of wisdom. And, if you're looking for free advertising, this isn't the place - check out the 'One Question Survey' below for a great free advertising offer. Send it in to mailto:Submit at AEOpublishing.com with 'Quick Tip' in the Subject block. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Win A FREE Ad In Community & Commentary =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To keep this interesting, how about this, every month we'll draw a name from the replies and that person will win one Sponsorship Showcase in the Community & Commentary, for FREE. That's a value of over $800.00! Respond to each weekly survey, and increase your chances to win with four separate entries. QUESTION OF THE WEEK (08/03/01)... No right or wrong answers, and just by answering you are entered to win a Sponsorship Showcase - Free! ~~~ How many email messages do you get per day? ~~~ Less than 40 mailto:one at AEOpublishing.com 41-100 mailto:two at AEOpublishing.com 101-300 mailto:three at AEOpublishing.com 301-1000 mailto:four at AEOpublishing.com More than 1000 mailto:five at AEOpublishing.com To make this as easy as possible for you, just click on the hyperlinked answer to send us an e-mail - you do not need to enter any information in the subject or body of the message. ** ADD YOUR COMMENTS! Follow directions above and add your comments in the body of the message, and we'll post the best commentaries along with the responses. You will automatically be entered in our drawing for a free Sponsorship ad in the Community & Commentary. Please respond only one time per question. Multiple responses from the same individual will be discarded. Last Weeks's Survey Results & Comments (07/27/01) ~~~ Are you concerned about identity theft online? ~~~ yes 81% no 19% Comments: ~~~~~~~~~ No. This is a funny thing to me. I hear about so many people being super scared to give out their SS#. Well folks, I can get your SS# for 50 cents. Give me a name and address and about 90% of the time I can get the number. We are so worried about putting our credit card number on the net, but we will give the card to a waiter or waitress and they take it out of our sight for 10 minutes. They could do who knows what with the CC number. I once had a person tell me that her lawyer said that she should never fax a copy of her check to anyone (checks by fax) because then that person (me) would have her account info and could write a check out for thousands of dollars. I told her to just send it to me then and she said that was OK. Then I asked her to tell me what the difference was between the original check and a fax copy. I told her to ask her lawyer that too. Never heard back from her. The bottom line is that if a crook wants to get your info, it is available in many places. Have a good day. -- Terry http://mysiteinc.com/tfn/lfi.html ~~~~~~~~~ Yes. I believe that the risk is out there but minimal. However, we can cut those risks by a few simple precautions. Most importantly, never give any personal information at a site that is not secure, always look for the lock in thetask bar or a Veri secure sign or others. Also, never leave your information stored at a site. I put in my credit information in each time instead of having an account in standing, a little more time but less risks involved! Of course, I mostly shop at my own Internet mall and I know how safe it is there, credit card info is deleted in a matter of seconds. Overall, I believe the web to be a safe and very fruitful new frontier! -- Catherine F. http://www.catco.nexgenmall.com ~~~~~~~~~ Yes. I had phenomena for 6 weeks and did not realize that my ISP was shut down at the same time because the owner was in a bad car accident. I had a full service account. My Internic fees were not paid so my WEB Address went unprotected. A Russian stepped in; paid the fees; and, promptly assigned my www.SchoolOfGeomatics.com address to a porn shop. Thus, I lost 4 years of building up 1st place rankings on 12 Search Engines and 2nd place on 8 more. This set me back about 4 months: I believe I lost a minimum of $50,000. I have also been hit with viruses about 10 times. The first time I lost almost 4 months of work. Now, I back up often enough to not to lose so much time. This is also Internet theft. These people are nothing but out and out criminals and should spend years behind bars. Customers are well protected from credit card theft; however, merchants can lose a lot of money. I sell only by purchase order and certified or registered company checks. -- Peter S. http://www.GSSGeomatics.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JULY WINNER ANNOUNCED! And the July 'One-Question Survey' WINNER is... John Stitzel - oldstitz at yahoo.com Congratulations John! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To change your subscribed address, send both new and old address to mailto:Submit at AEOpublishing.com See the link (below) for our Subscription Center to unsubscribe or edit your interests. Please send suggestions and comments to: mailto:Editor at AEOpublishing.com I invite you to send your real successes and showcase your strategies and techniques, or yes, even your total bombs, "Working Together We Can All Prosper." mailto:Submit at AEOpublishing.com For information on how to sponsor Your Membership Community & Commentary visit: http://bannersgomlm.com/ezine Copyright 2001 AEOpublishing.com ------------------------------------------------ web: http://www.AEOpublishing.com ------------------------------------------------ This email has been sent to cypherpunks at cyberpass.net at your request, by Your Membership Newsletter Services. Visit our Subscription Center to edit your interests or unsubscribe. http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=oo&id=bd7n7877.8ifwzla6&m=bd7n7877&ea=cypherpunks at cyberpass.net View our privacy policy: http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Powered by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 22034 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 04:03:13 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 06:03:13 -0500 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: All we lawyer-types are saying is to engage the law in your problem-solving, it's in your threat model. Many of your "solutions" are 100% conflict-avoidance, or even ...conflict-ignorance. A strategic error. Where there is a corpus, there is a law to get it. You always PLAN FOR CONFLICT. Hence, we have _The Art Of War_ -- and not, _The Art Of Hiding_. Hiding or secrecy as a total strategy has historically been limited by the Rule Of Secrets/Least Safe Principle, and the equally-important "well, doesn't this look suspicious!" -- a rule of natural law and human disposition. Crypto is not a person, object and asset invisibility machine. Until such a marvel comes to pass, stick to traditional wargaming. THE SITUATION: ------------- Controverted spies have brought you intelligence that the enemy has a new long-range weapon. You learn that it works, but you think you lie outside the current range. However, you learn that it is undergoing rapid development and experimentation. SOME OF YOUR RESPONSES: ----------------------- "They're dumb, I hate them, and they can't hit us." "IF they've never hit us, THEN they can't." "They can't hit what they can't see." "We should insult and burn the spies at the stake for bringing us this information." "Bitch. Bitch. Bitch." *** Within this particular range of hypotheticals, the courts are going to see a problem and they might reach for spoliation. Arguing over the rightfulness or wrongfulness of it is a futile exercise. When you learn your adversary is using a new tactic or developing a new weapon, you examine your own tactics and adjust them accordingly in ANTICIPATION OF CONFLICT. You assume they will "get better" unless you do something about it. Given the nature of the law, there is nothing to be done other than to prepare for advancement and proliferation. The legal question is never what is - but what will be. In this light, precedent is not "a rule," it is an aid for prediction. "To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." -- Sun Tzu. A most apt analogy for the law. Where it presents an obstacle, it presents an opportunity. ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 04:05:07 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 06:05:07 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B69E3E1.14134.513B9B@localhost> Message-ID: James A. Donald: > On 2 Aug 2001, at 19:01, Aimee Farr wrote: > [...] > (under ' 1503, documents destroyed do not have to > > be under subpoena; it is sufficient if the defendant is aware > that the grand > > jury will likely seek the documents in its investigation); > > \All these citations obviously refer to situations where the case is > already under way, and are thus irrelevant to the claims made by > Black Unicorn. The cases were offered for general background, nothing more. Actually, I don't think all of them referred to a situation where the case was "underway." Google up spoliation and see that I brought this up earlier. The fact that Uni also instinctively reached for the concept, should tell you something: spoliation is what the courts will reach for both in crypto and in datahavening situations. I don't think either of us is saying that the theory is without limitations. Where the courts will draw the lines is a big question. It will depend on the circumstances the court is presented with. Spoliation in a digital context is evolving and volatile. Some of you seem to suggest we are saying this is a big, black line -- we aren't saying that. Just because something is distinguishable, doesn't mean it won't be extrapolated. The judicial acceptance of spoliation has been rapid. Did you read the cases? Did you shep them? Did you look at the adoption of corporate electronic retention policies? Just making a point that there is a definite trend of judicial acceptance and extrapolation. The history here is revealing, and it isn't in the case law. An important point is that the courts have validated electronic destruction. They see it as a legitimate exercise to limit discovery fishing. That's a positive utilitarian undercurrent that many of you aren't seeing, even though you can't hide behind a policy. The courts are placing a good faith burden on the person with the evidence. To what extent this will be applied in a "personal papers" context - who knows? As for your comments regarding Nixon, that was before spoliation was "revived" by the courts in a digital context. The erosion of personal paper protection and game theory also comes into play here. (I threw out a SSRN link to a paper earlier in this thread, which covered this a little, if you are interested in commenting on it.) ~Aimee From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 05:27:12 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 07:27:12 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | California Court Ruling Favors Online Speech Message-ID: <3B6A98A0.3F500225@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/02/2145207 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bear at sonic.net Fri Aug 3 07:35:59 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: <3B69E3E1.11548.513BB9@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 jamesd at echeque.com wrote: >> He is not "superior" in any substantial way; however, his expertise >> in law, combined with a willingness to actually discuss it, are in >> short supply here. > >He is a nym. We do not know his actual qualifications. From what he has posted here, I am not impressed. > >Perhaps he has expertise in some areas of laws. He lacks expertise on the topics that he has posted on. > You are wrong. I went and looked up the Caterpillar cite he gave. It is real. This stuff is happening in the courts and we wouldn't have known it otherwise. Bear From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 05:45:37 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:45:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > All we lawyer-types are saying is to engage the law in your problem-solving, > it's in your threat model. Many of your "solutions" are 100% > conflict-avoidance, or even ...conflict-ignorance. A strategic error. Where > there is a corpus, there is a law to get it. You always PLAN FOR CONFLICT. > Hence, we have _The Art Of War_ -- and not, _The Art Of Hiding_. Truly you have missed the point of the work then... A battle which doesn't have to be fought is a superior strategy. Defeating your enemies mind, versus his armies, is a superior strategy. Attacking where your enemy isn't is a superior strategy. Only a naive grognard would head for the main point of resistance given any alternative at all (including waiting until another day). > Hiding or secrecy as a total strategy has historically been limited by the > Rule Of Secrets/Least Safe Principle, and the equally-important "well, > doesn't this look suspicious!" -- a rule of natural law and human > disposition. Which is after all why(!) we have things like the 4th and 5th... Keep this line of thought up and you'll be where I am, C-A-C-L doesn't work because of human nature. > Crypto is not a person, object and asset invisibility machine. ^ universal > Until such a marvel comes to pass, stick to traditional wargaming. I can tell you haven't, wargamed that is. Always be unconventional, do what your opponent doesn't expect. > > THE SITUATION: > ------------- > Controverted spies have brought you intelligence that the enemy has a new > long-range weapon. You learn that it works, but you think you lie outside > the current range. However, you learn that it is undergoing rapid > development and experimentation. > > SOME OF YOUR RESPONSES: > ----------------------- > "They're dumb, I hate them, and they can't hit us." > > "IF they've never hit us, THEN they can't." > > "They can't hit what they can't see." > > "We should insult and burn the spies at the stake for bringing us this > information." > > "Bitch. Bitch. Bitch." > > *** > > Within this particular range of hypotheticals, the courts are going to see a > problem and they might reach for spoliation. I'd say you're certainly reaching. Oh, you're comment about 'can't see, can't hit' isn't correct. The inverse, "What you can see you can kill" is. Note that they are not equivalent (Hint: it has to do with your definition of 'seeing'). > Arguing over the rightfulness or wrongfulness of it is a futile exercise. Over what are we arguing? You've raised three seperate issues that are in conflict in this example. Which one is futile? And if you think 'moral indignation' doesn't have something to do with war then you truly don't understand war. > When you learn your adversary is > using a new tactic or developing a new weapon, you examine your own tactics > and adjust them accordingly in ANTICIPATION OF CONFLICT. Perhaps, but history is full(!!!) of examples where nations didn't do that (consider Plan Orange & Plan Black and the verious strategies they followed). > "To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the > opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." -- Sun > Tzu. > > A most apt analogy for the law. Where it presents an obstacle, it presents > an opportunity. Actualy it isn't, the quote argues AGAINST your point, m'lady. There is a difference between 'secure ourselves against defeat' and 'defeating the enemy'. That disctinction cuts to the very core of your argument and disembowels it like a Wakizashi. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 3 08:18:11 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 08:18:11 -0700 Subject: sealand, serge humpich spoofing, geZeroLee, bankcards Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010803081811.0089bb40@pop.sprynet.com> _Intelligence Newsletter_ 19 Jul 2001 p 1 has a story about someone spoofing (cryptologist) Serge Humpich from Sealand (S.H. was in Calif.) The spoofed msg described how bank cards are insecure, and came a few days after someone released 'geZeroLee Box v.1.0' which can write smartcards. From bear at sonic.net Fri Aug 3 08:37:53 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: >Hiding or secrecy as a total strategy has historically been limited by the >Rule Of Secrets/Least Safe Principle, and the equally-important "well, >doesn't this look suspicious!" -- a rule of natural law and human >disposition. Crypto is not a person, object and asset invisibility machine. The real problem with hiding or secrecy as a total strategy is that there can be no community. Your lovely crypto-auction protocol is no damn good unless you can get a critical mass of people to participate in a marketplace, and rather useless unless those people can be anonymous. Ebay may be a good thing, but can you imagine how useless it would be if it had to be kept secret from law-enforcement types? You'd pretty much have to keep it secret from the whole public, and then of course nobody would use it. I've got a nice protocol for running a fully-encrypted mailing list stegoized in images on a web/FTP site, which would be totally invisible to non-participants - but such a list can't be announced publicly so of course nobody could find out about it and join it, without also letting the law know about it and join it. And the list goes on. Every time you try to get something used by more than a dozen people, it cannot be secret. What cannot be secret, you can't keep the law from knowing about. What you can't keep the law from knowing about, you can't keep the law from trying to regulate. And regulation of anything on the internet can happen, because EVERY IP address is in principle traceable. Oh, it may take a week or two -- they may have to slap your ISP with an order to preserve logs and wait for the next time something happens if you're on DHCP, or they may have to get the cooperation of one or more other governments if your login trail runs outside their jurisdiction -- but ultimately, it's traceable. Bear From measl at mfn.org Fri Aug 3 06:41:19 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:41:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > C'punks, > > So by my count it looks as though we are now up to at least THREE village > idiots. Four: You forgot to count yourself in. > Each convinced that he knows the law (not in theory, but as > practiced in reality) better than the lawyers. > > There's a small black part of me that REALLY would enjoy seeing these three > arrogantly childish ignoramuses in the docket, pissing their pants when the > macho flash wears thin. > > Hey Jimbo, that LSAT "easy money" is still waiting for you to grow a pair. > > > S a n d y Ease up on those testosterone tablets Sandy, you are looking more and more like a fifth grade bully wannabe every day. You are the kind of asshole I sent my kid to school with the roll of quarters for... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 09:06:31 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:06:31 -0700 Subject: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: J.A. Terranson wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > ... > > So by my count it looks as though > > we are now up to at least THREE > > village idiots. > > Four: You forgot to count yourself in. Not so, because I am not in arrogant denial of legal realities as are the three village idiots in question. At this point, I don't know your position on the underlying question so I don't know yet whether to elevate your status to that of the fourth village idiot. > Ease up on those testosterone > tablets Sandy... You are confused. I was asking Jimbo to increase his level of testicular fortitude and take the LSAT. There is nothing quite so sobering for a village idiot as to have his idiocy documented by an objective test of the skills in question. > ...you are looking more and more > like a fifth grade bully wannabe > every day. Some folks can only see what they want to see. My guess is that your personal animus towards me has merely caused you to "project" your own negative tendency onto me. That's fine by me; it gives me a good insight into where you're coming from. > You are the kind of asshole I > sent my kid to school with the > roll of quarters for... My goodness, living out your violent fantasies vicariously through your child. Have you sought counseling? ;'D S a n d y From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 09:16:35 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:16:35 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: <163E38AD96AAC044B486CC084AEB0E1F01EA34@tornado.robichaux.l o cal> Message-ID: Paul E. Robichaux wrote: > ...the fact remains that some > contributors to this list produce > more valuable material than others. > Uni, Tim, Peter Trei, JYA, Sandy, > and a number of other old-school > c'punks have been making this list > worth reading since 1993 or so... Thanks. It's a real honor to make your short list. > Having said that, I took about a > three-year hiatus from the list. > When I came back, Choate was still > choating, Tim & Sandy were still > sniping at each other, and Uni was > still funny. /Plus ca change, plus c'est la Mjme chose/ S a n d y From steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk Fri Aug 3 02:25:55 2001 From: steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk (Steve Mynott) Date: 03 Aug 2001 09:25:55 +0000 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: Lucky Green's message of "Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:20:47 -0700" References: Message-ID: Lucky Green writes: > There are Cypherpunks without a Westlaw or LEXIS login? The mind boggles... Ones outside the USA who aren't (or rather shouldn't be) subject to American law? -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and i'm not sure about the former. --albert einstein From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Fri Aug 3 07:27:10 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:27:10 -0500 Subject: Intellectual Property and the Good Society Message-ID: http://www.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/01q3/ip-ethics/ip-ethics-1.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Fri Aug 3 07:31:57 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:31:57 -0500 Subject: Haxploitation: the complete Reg guide to hackers in films Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/20818.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 06:37:05 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:37:05 -0400 Subject: How pork works -- a case study, from Sen. Richard Shelby Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010803093644.022006f0@mail.well.com> United States Senator * Alabama FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information Contact: August 2, 2001 Andrea Andrews (202) 224-6518 SHELBY ANNOUNCES SENATE APPROVAL FOR ALABAMA PROJECTS WASHINGTON, D. C. --- U. S. Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, announced today the approval of funding requests for several Alabama projects. The Senate approved several Alabama-related projects at the request of Senator Shelby. Sen. Shelby said, "The money included in this legislation will go a long way towards assisting many communities in Alabama." The following project requests, were funded by the Senate: University of South Alabama, Center for Estuarine Research - $750,000 "I am pleased to announce $750,000 in funding for the Center for Estuarine Research at the University of South Alabama. The Center conducts important research on the ecology of coastal lands and seascapes in the Gulf Coast and Mobile Bay areas. This funding will allow the University of South Alabama to continue the vital ecological research it is conducting in Alabama. The knowledge gained from this research provides important scientific insights that can be used to preserve and protect coastal plants and wildlife," said Shelby. Renovation of the Historic Greene County Courthouse - $400,000 Sen. Shelby said, "The historic Greene County Courthouse is an important part of Alabama's history. I am pleased that this money will be used to restore the Courthouse to its' natural beauty. This restoration effort is an important first step in the County's long-term plan for renovation of the old Courthouse Square." Hamilton, Alabama Call Center Facility - $500,000 Sen. Shelby said, "The City of Hamilton is greatly in need of a Call Facility. Our funds will allow the city to construct the facility that will result in nearly 600 jobs for the city and surrounding area." The American Village, Federal Hall/Liberty Square Expansion - $500,000 Sen. Shelby said, "These funds will be used for the construction of Federal Hall and the expansion of Liberty Square in Montevallo. The expansion will triple the capacity of students served by the facility to more than 150,000 per year. The educational potential of these projects is significant." The Alabama Quail Trail - $100,000 Sen. Shelby said, "The Alabama Quail Trail project will create a "Quail Trail" to attract hunters to rural Alabama hunting areas. The untapped natural resources of these areas offer superb hunting areas for visitors. The boost that will be provided to local economies by visiting hunters is not insignificant. Once fully implemented, the Alabama Quail Trail will generate considerable economic growth in rural Alabama." Cleveland Avenue YMCA, Montgomery, Alabama - $500,000 Sen. Shelby said, "We have included $500,000 for the Cleveland Avenue YMCA in Montgomery to expand their existing programs. This facility is a cornerstone of the community and serves an underprivileged youth population in Montgomery. The expansion of these programs will allow the YMCA to serve a greater number of young people in the area." - more - Page 2 - VA/HUD Appropriations Housing Authority of Andalusia Bright Beginnings Project - $350,000 Sen. Shelby said, "The Andalusia Bright Beginnings Project serves a population of low-income, high-risk preschool children in the Andalusia area to ensure that they have the proper educational foundation before entering elementary school. These funds will allow the Andalusia Housing Authority to expand these educational programs and construct a new facility to accommodate a greater number of these children in their program." Winfield, Alabama Call Center Facility - $500,000 Sen. Shelby said, "The $500,000 provided in this legislation will allow the City of Winfield to construct a Call Center facility that will result in nearly 600 jobs for the city and surrounding area." Lovelady Building Acquisition on Historic Water Avenue, Selma, Alabama - $100,000 Sen. Shelby said, "These funds will assist the City of Selma in the protection of this historic home on Water Avenue. The acquisition of the Lovelady Building will also allow for future expansion of the St. James Hotel property." Lakeshore Foundation Facility Expansion - $500,000 Sen. Shelby said, "Birmingham's Lakeshore Foundation serves Alabamians with disabilities through a variety of programs and services. The $500,000 we have provided will assist the Foundation in their efforts to expand their facilities to serve a greater number of individuals with physical disabilities." Family Connection, Inc. Diversionary Program for First Time Juvenile Offenders - $150,000 Sen. Shelby said, "Family Connection, working together with the Shelby County District Court, will serve the community with the operation of a facility for first time juvenile offenders. Our funding will assist Family Connection in the construction of the facility to house this important program." Covington County Farm Center - $300,000 Sen. Shelby said, "The Covington County Farm Center is an important part of the Community and I am pleased that the $300,000 we have provided will assist them with the construction of Phase II of the Center. This Center is an important part of the on-going economic development in Covington County." Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Water and Wastewater Training - $700,000 Sen. Shelby said, "These funds will be used to continue the training at the Alabama Department of Environmental Management." Alabama Water Projects "We recognize that cities and counties are faced with many water and sewer challenges and I believe that this funding will go a long way in assisting local communities with those challenges," said Shelby. Southwest Alabama Regional Water Authority water facility project - $1,000,000 Rainbow City construction of emergency response systems for the sewerage lagoons - $500,000 Grant, Alabama wastewater collection and treatment facilities - $600,000 Jackson, Alabama for water system improvements - $1,000,000 - 30 - From getawayandtravel at bmt.usr.net Fri Aug 3 09:43:47 2001 From: getawayandtravel at bmt.usr.net (getawayandtravel at bmt.usr.net) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:43:47 Subject: 334 40 Register and Win One of 25 Dream Vacations... 99934 Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 530 bytes Desc: not available URL: From getawayandtravel at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 09:43:47 2001 From: getawayandtravel at hotmail.com (getawayandtravel at hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:43:47 Subject: Computer/ Vacation Confirmation 88 Message-ID: <20010803063223.84d4a06f87f711d5998e00a0c9819b88.in@mail.raringcorp.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 530 bytes Desc: not available URL: From getawayandtravel at bmt.usr.net Fri Aug 3 09:43:48 2001 From: getawayandtravel at bmt.usr.net (getawayandtravel at bmt.usr.net) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:43:48 Subject: Vacation Confirmation 555 Message-ID: <200108031350.IAA06317@einstein.ssz.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 530 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gbroiles at well.com Fri Aug 3 09:48:37 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:48:37 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 12:11 AM 8/3/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Claims that releasing something in a form which may not practically (in >the strongest sense of the word!) be retrieved is some kind of >"spoliation" are bizarre. The claim that distributing via Freenet or Mojo >or Usenet, systems which are similar to ordinary publishing in the sense >that retrieval after distribution is nearly impossible, is also bizarre. I think this is the really interesting leap here - from the ability of a court to order production of documents, to the ability of a court to control distribution of information. The "production" or subpoena aspect has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam on the list - but the reporter's attorney said they were asking for all originals and copies of the reporter's notes, which makes it sound like this grand jury (or the prosecutor controlling it) would like to swallow them up and never give them back - or delay public knowledge and discussion of the events involved in the case until a time more convenient for prosecutors and law enforcement. I think a response more appropriate than secrecy (with the attending arguments about offshore trusts, the relationship between crosscut shredders and cryptography, etc) would have been immediate, widespread publication - via Freenet or Cryptome, if the local paper wasn't interested. Then there's no more arguing over secret documents, and the grand jury's free to read about it in the newspaper and ask the journalist to come in and confirm that no details were altered during the editing process. Courts have relatively strong powers with respect to controlling the possession and disposition of physical things like notebooks or hard disks, but relatively weak powers with respect to limiting the dissemination of information not in the court's exclusive possession, so long as the disseminator is not a party to a case before the court, nor an attorney for a party. So don't fight the court where they're strong and you're weak - fight where you're strong and the court is weak, e.g., about prior restraint of publishing, rather than whether or not evidence was destroyed or withheld, which might be a contempt proceeding, which includes very little "due process" and no jury. The other lesson to be learned is that Texas courts don't recognize a journalistic privilege - so Texas journalists shouldn't expect to benefit from one. Also, that the protections afforded publishers in 42 USC 2000aa won't necessarily extend to abusive grand juries, since they likely don't fall within the definition of "government officers and employees", even if they're just a cat's paw for the prosecutor. I think a lot of the tension around "cypherpunks should think about law" or "cypherpunks should not waste time on law" comes from different basic assumptions - if you start out thinking that police are thugs and you have no rights except the ones you enforce yourself, then all of this legal discussion is a big distraction. If you start out thinking that you live in the high-school-civics-class version of America, and that the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment are alive and well on the streets and in the courtrooms, then, the legal discussion is relevant to the extent that it brings those expectations back in line with reality. Of course, sometimes people with the first view will admit that the thugs' behavior isn't totally arbitrary, but needs to be mostly orderly and appear reasonable so as to preserve the thugs' privileged position, and that it's possible to take advantage of that systemic tendency towards predictability to game the system, and thereby avoid the thugs - and sometimes people with the second view will admit that perhaps the delta between the advertised version of Reality and the implementation is so vast that it's easier to list the positive changes from the "thug" model than the negatives changes from the Jeffersonian/Madisonian ideal. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From jamesd at echeque.com Fri Aug 3 09:50:32 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:50:32 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B69E3E1.14134.513B9B@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6A73E8.17070.708BD1@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 6:05, Aimee Farr wrote: > The fact that Uni also instinctively reached for the concept, should tell > you something: spoliation is what the courts will reach for both in crypto > and in datahavening situations As I mentioned earlier, we have already had both crypto and data havening situations, in the DVD case we had data havening while the case was actually under way, which certainly was defiance of the court. Lots of people, among them various companies I worked for, have been doing equivalent things with shredders, selective backup, and so on and so forth, routinely destroying records, in part because excessive record keeping could become a disaster in any court case. Everyone is doing it, no one has been charged. There is no law against it, no legal precedents against it, merely a claim that judges will "look with disfavor" upon it. When the first thousand executives who have been overactive with routine use of their shredders go to jail for their routine weekly, monthly, and yearly destruction of records, then it will be time for remailer operators to worry. > Just because something is distinguishable, doesn't mean it won't be > extrapolated. The judicial acceptance of spoliation has been rapid. Did you > read the cases? Did you shep them? Did you look at the adoption of corporate > electronic retention policies? Just making a point that there is a definite > trend of judicial acceptance and extrapolation. The history here is > revealing, and it isn't in the case law. I am still waiting for some executives to be jailed for their policies of routine, regularly scheduled destruction of records. It seems extraordinarily rare for people to be punished even for non routine destruction of records, unless seizures of records were already under way. Certainly the people who data havened the DVD ripping code before the court order were not punished, even though those people had the intention of defying and ridiculing the courts. Punishing people for routine record destruction is almost unimaginable, as is punishment for routine publication of thought crimes into irrecoverable media. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lytsv2300DnKSYH7cWTlq2XaKE9gu05aVNbsNxZ2 4sAcIMWho5pwW6b+mToJnf5hK8/ODWYMCd/uaP5Jx From jamesd at echeque.com Fri Aug 3 09:50:32 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:50:32 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B69E3E1.14134.513B9B@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6A73E8.25230.708BC7@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 6:05, Aimee Farr wrote: > The cases were offered for general background, nothing more. The claim has been made these cases are cites, demonstrating the correctness of of Black Unicorn's claims. They are not. To demonstrate his claims, he would have to produce an example of someone who was punished for failure to keep records, or for routinely destroying records, not someone who was punished for destroying records relevant to a particular case after the case against him got under way. He has presented no such punishment, therefore no such case exists. Therefore remailer operators and the rest of us can in perfect comfort fail to keep logs, we can circulate thought crimes into irrecoverable systems, and so on and so forth. In the recent case about DVD ripping, the court was outraged by efforts to distribute the ripping code in anticipation of the court order, and before the court order could be issued. Yet in the end, no one was punished of actions taken in anticipation of a court order, actions taken to make that order unenforceable, actions taken while the case was under way. Therefore we can certainly take actions to protect thoughtcrimes while cases are not under way. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG zMUEULH2lmNLFMp7l5upkDIeBisXseixACrMwOTw 4IJCI9T+Reyc+OvTC1asm9TVF84n1z5ndR/46gWcm From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Fri Aug 3 07:53:26 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:53:26 -0500 Subject: Artifact analyses dispute assumptions about prehistoric society Message-ID: The commentary about the relation between political/social complexity and economics is interesting... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010802080753.htm James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From paul at robichaux.net Fri Aug 3 07:55:35 2001 From: paul at robichaux.net (Paul E. Robichaux) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:55:35 -0500 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit Message-ID: <163E38AD96AAC044B486CC084AEB0E1F01EA34@tornado.robichaux.lo cal> An Metet chastised Uni thus: >Your complaints about "free research" suggest that you have the sense >that you are more valuable than or superior to other contributors. Some animals really *are* more equal than others. Whether Uni has this sense or not[1], the fact remains that some contributors to this list produce more valuable material than others. Uni, Tim, Peter Trei, JYA, Sandy, and a number of other old-school c'punks have been making this list worth reading since 1993 or so. Not every contribution is of equal value. Having said that, I took about a three-year hiatus from the list. When I came back, Choate was still choating, Tim & Sandy were still sniping at each other, and Uni was still funny. Nice to be back at home. [1] He apparently doesn't, but would be entitled to have it if he wished. From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 09:57:05 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:57:05 -0700 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:37 AM -0700 8/3/01, Ray Dillinger wrote: >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > >>Hiding or secrecy as a total strategy has historically been limited by the >>Rule Of Secrets/Least Safe Principle, and the equally-important "well, >>doesn't this look suspicious!" -- a rule of natural law and human >>disposition. Crypto is not a person, object and asset invisibility machine. > >The real problem with hiding or secrecy as a total strategy is >that there can be no community. Your lovely crypto-auction >protocol is no damn good unless you can get a critical mass of >people to participate in a marketplace, and rather useless unless >those people can be anonymous. > >Ebay may be a good thing, but can you imagine how useless it would >be if it had to be kept secret from law-enforcement types? You'd >pretty much have to keep it secret from the whole public, and then >of course nobody would use it. > >I've got a nice protocol for running a fully-encrypted mailing list >stegoized in images on a web/FTP site, which would be totally invisible >to non-participants - but such a list can't be announced publicly >so of course nobody could find out about it and join it, without >also letting the law know about it and join it. I know I've passed on cites more than a couple of times to try to educate you about things you keep missing. You apparently don't bother to read what people suggest you read. Security through obscurity is what you are talking about above. It is NOT what many of us here are talking about. Read up on remailers, Blacknet approaches, Gnutella/Morpheus/Freenet approaches, Pipenet, and even Freedom (ZKS). Unlinkability has bandwidth costs. There are practical reasons why in a world of connectivity at DSL speeds some things (like large file-swapping) will not be practically unlinkable. But small files, such as text files, political tracts, digital cash, etc. is easily made unlinkable in a world of DSL-speed connections. Do the math. You say you have "a nice protocol for running a fully-encrypted mailing list stegoized in images," but in your time on this list I have not seen you contribute any interesting technical ideas. Distributing stegoized images to a list of recipients is so banal and hackneyed that it barely deserves comment: of COURSE it is just security through obscurity...what else could it be? (Dig up my article from 1989 on stegoizing in images to see a treatment of this point.) We knew in 1992 that running the CP list as an encrypted list or stegoized list was pointless, given the absence of unlinkability. You need to do some reading and some deeper thinking than you have so far done. >And the list goes on. Every time you try to get something used by >more than a dozen people, it cannot be secret. What cannot be >secret, you can't keep the law from knowing about. What you can't >keep the law from knowing about, you can't keep the law from trying >to regulate. All well known. >And regulation of anything on the internet can happen, because EVERY >IP address is in principle traceable. Oh, it may take a week or >two -- they may have to slap your ISP with an order to preserve logs >and wait for the next time something happens if you're on DHCP, or >they may have to get the cooperation of one or more other governments >if your login trail runs outside their jurisdiction -- but ultimately, >it's traceable. You apparently don't even understand how even simple remailer chains work. I could give examples, but this is well-trod ground. Look it up yourself. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From adam at homeport.org Fri Aug 3 07:04:56 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:04:56 -0400 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20010803100455.A17293@weathership.homeport.org> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 12:20:47AM -0700, Lucky Green wrote: | Ray wrote: | | > [...] as one who | > is not of the Priveleged Caste in terms of access to legal information, | > (ie, willing to pay thousands of bucks to Westlaw or whoever each | > year) I am grateful to him for passing it on. | | There are Cypherpunks without a Westlaw or LEXIS login? The mind boggles... Clearly, one can no longer write code without such, at least if you want to stay out of jail. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 10:07:23 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:07:23 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A73E8.25230.708BC7@localhost> Message-ID: James A. Donald wrote: > He has presented no such > punishment, therefore no such > case exists. > > Therefore remailer operators > and the rest of us can in perfect > comfort fail to keep logs, we can > circulate thought crimes into > irrecoverable systems, and so on > and so forth. Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all. The important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they may show a TREND in the law. The common law evolves over time. To say that no precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT exists means that you can operate "in perfect comfort" is asinine. The question is, what will a court say NEXT? S a n d y From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 10:10:47 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:10:47 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> References: <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: At 9:48 AM -0700 8/3/01, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 12:11 AM 8/3/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >>Claims that releasing something in a form which may not practically >>(in the strongest sense of the word!) be retrieved is some kind of >>"spoliation" are bizarre. The claim that distributing via Freenet >>or Mojo or Usenet, systems which are similar to ordinary publishing >>in the sense that retrieval after distribution is nearly >>impossible, is also bizarre. > >I think this is the really interesting leap here - from the ability >of a court to order production of documents, to the ability of a >court to control distribution of information. The "production" or >subpoena aspect has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam on the list >- but the reporter's attorney said they were asking for all >originals and copies of the reporter's notes, which makes it sound >like this grand jury (or the prosecutor controlling it) would like >to swallow them up and never give them back - or delay public >knowledge and discussion of the events involved in the case until a >time more convenient for prosecutors and law enforcement. > Indeed, the order to produce "and all copies" looks to be an obvious effort to quash the material. Thoughtcrime. >I think a response more appropriate than secrecy (with the attending >arguments about offshore trusts, the relationship between crosscut >shredders and cryptography, etc) would have been immediate, >widespread publication - via Freenet or Cryptome, if the local paper >wasn't interested. Then there's no more arguing over secret >documents, and the grand jury's free to read about it in the >newspaper and ask the journalist to come in and confirm that no >details were altered during the editing process. > Some here are arguing that such publication constitutes "spoliation." I have seen no cites that support this novel interpretation. Publishing something, whether on Freenet or in Time, may trigger later damage claims (as with violating copyrights), but it can hardly be considered a kissing cousin to "destruction of evidence." And for someone not an actual party to a court case, not subject to a court's order, not even "contempt of court" could apply. >Courts have relatively strong powers with respect to controlling the >possession and disposition of physical things like notebooks or hard >disks, but relatively weak powers with respect to limiting the >dissemination of information not in the court's exclusive >possession, so long as the disseminator is not a party to a case >before the court, nor an attorney for a party. > Well said. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From amaha at vsnl.net Fri Aug 3 08:48:30 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:48:30 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108031548.f73FmTZ11240@ak47.algebra.com> Success is a journey not a destination. --Ben Sweetland ********************************************************************************** Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period of 60 days+. We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will make your life peaceful,successful & happy in a way you had never imagined before. If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy From bear at sonic.net Fri Aug 3 10:51:04 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >>and wait for the next time something happens if you're on DHCP, or >>they may have to get the cooperation of one or more other governments >>if your login trail runs outside their jurisdiction -- but ultimately, >>it's traceable. > >You apparently don't even understand how even simple remailer chains work. Hello, earth to Tim. (1) You can send anonymous mail by sending it through a remailer, but (2) The remailers themselves are not anonymous. (3) If the remailers *were* anonymous, they could not operate because then the users would not know where to send their mails. As long as the remailers themselves are traceable, make no mistake: they exist only because the lions have not yet passed a law against them. You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is traceable and pulpable by the law. Bear From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 10:56:33 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:56:33 -0700 Subject: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6AE294.2B36B295@ameritech.net> Message-ID: Harmon Seaver (VI3) offered, > Whooooieee! Question authority... I have no idea what VI3 is talking about here. I WAS questioning authority. The "authority" of the smug arrogance that VI1, VI2 and Harmon, himself, demonstrate in uttering their UNINFORMED opinions of the law. Sputtering vague, unsupported and illogical wishful thinking is not "questioning authority" in any meaningful manner. Look, the lawyers on this list aren't ADVOCATING these stupid laws. They are trying to warn some of the slower members of our community which way the juggernaut is rolling and suggesting ways they can get out of the way and still do what they want to do. Geez, I'm astounded I have to explain this stuff to folks who are supposed to be a cut above the average. S a n d y From nobody at remailer.privacy.at Fri Aug 3 02:08:01 2001 From: nobody at remailer.privacy.at (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:08:01 +0200 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit Message-ID: <4128018c7efccee629245f1ec8405c9d@remailer.privacy.at> Black Unicorn wrote: >> Your complaints about "free research" suggest that you have the sense >> that you are more valuable than or superior to other contributors. > >I think that's quite a reach on your part if you are pointing it out >generally. I don't think so. Other people don't think so. Please don't be unhappy, I'm actually trying to be helpful. I've enjoyed reading your work. Specifically, your work on spoliation has affected my thinking, and probably that of others. Sometimes it's a little hard to tell that one is having an effect. Often a really good post elicits minimal response because there's not much more to be said. And thousands of readers of this list never post at all. However, you have made a variety of remarks which could be seen, not too unreasonably, as being just a little bit condescending. If you are feeling that people are behaving inappropriately towards you, it might be worth considering if you might be unintentionally conveying this impression. >If you mean with specific reference to legal points regarding the >production of documents and such- very much the focus of my early >legal career- then I would submit to you that I would have to be >awfully stupid _not_ to have more experience and expertise in these >matters than anyone who had not spent the amount of time I had in the >field. No, what I am specifically addressing is complaints of having done some research and "jocular" requests for money. Other people who have experience and have done research have not made these requests. (Okay, some have, but they warrant the same response.) >I am more than happy to volunteer my expertise, and my research time, >to try to focus discussions (or confuse discussions depending on your >view) with respect to legal matters that impact system design. Good! As I've said earlier, I find these posts useful. >I, after all, don't demand cites from C++ manuals, or physics texts >when a fairly recognized expert in those fields posts on those topics >here. It wouldn't be unreasonable to do so. This isn't just an engineering thing, academia functions the same way. People want to know the chain of evidence. This is healthy. I don't especially believe in trusting "recognized experts" because so many of them are simply "recognized." In your case, nobody even knows your name, so is it all that unreasonable to ask for a citation? (Perhaps you didn't enjoy being insulted, but that's part of the deal if you trifle with the Lion of Aptos. ;-) >> It's a free world, but it might work better >> not to insult people, even if the insult is slightly veiled. > >I think if you review the posts on this topic over the last few days >you might find that I've been perhaps the most civil of the authors, >even in the face of some pretty caustic replies. Is this really all that civil? : >> (Your spoliation posts have been interesting. Thank you for writing >> them.) > >Oh, you read them? That will be $750.00 please. To me, this is condescending and that is unwarranted. If you feel that you are slumming it, it's a good idea not to let on to the slummees. From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Fri Aug 3 09:12:37 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:12:37 -0500 Subject: Is American politics dead? Message-ID: http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/2/21137/10500 James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From pablo-escobar at hushmail.com Fri Aug 3 11:17:24 2001 From: pablo-escobar at hushmail.com (pablo-escobar at hushmail.com) Date: Fri Aug 3 11:17:24 PDT 2001 Subject: South Africa plans hardline Internet snooping legislation Message-ID: <200108031115.f73BFoL53934@mailserver1a> >Protest is growing in South Africa about the country's plan to introduce legislation that closely parallels the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. > >South Africa's Interception and Monitoring Bill aims to "regulate the monitoring of communications" and even advocates banning forms of communications that can't be bugged, which means it goes further than Britain's RIP Act. Protest No! Kill lawmakers Si! Send dem a necktie. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From georgemw at speakeasy.net Fri Aug 3 11:24:10 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:24:10 -0700 Subject: (file sharing) morpheus rules! In-Reply-To: <20010803113301.A2527@economists.cryptohill.net> Message-ID: <3B6A89DA.30274.A4DCA1@localhost> On 3 Aug 2001, at 11:33, Adam Back wrote: > If any were looking for a replacement for napster since > it buckled to pressure from RIAA, it's here: morpheus. > [review deleted] > > Adam > > Some questions that would be of relevance duscussing file-sharing systems on this group: is it adware/spyware? Is the source available? If not, do they at least make the communication protocol open so you could build your own client if you wanted to? George From adam at cypherspace.org Fri Aug 3 08:33:01 2001 From: adam at cypherspace.org (Adam Back) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:33:01 -0400 Subject: (file sharing) morpheus rules! Message-ID: <20010803113301.A2527@economists.cryptohill.net> If any were looking for a replacement for napster since it buckled to pressure from RIAA, it's here: morpheus. It's distributed like gnutella, but it scales, it has fast searches, downloads work, and are not sensitive to individual machines being switched off mid download. It tries to download from network topologically close machines. (It downloads from multiple machines at once to speed up download, and so that one machine can go down without losing the download). The architecture is a self organising network which promotes some peers to being super-nodes based on their bandwidth. Super-nodes act as search hubs, which avoids the gnutella melt-down which arises due to their broadcast searches. I've been informally plotting the growth of morpheus for the last 3 weeks, and I figure it stands a fair chance of reaching 1 peta byte (1000 Terabytes) in storage by the end of this month. Last seen with 600,000 simultaneous users sharing 50 million files and 300 Tb of data. windows only but worth rebooting into windows for. on a side note napster deservd to die -- it's like evolution for file sharing networks. It's central point of failure and central server involvement in searches made it too vulnerable to legal attack. Gnutella wasn't but didn't scale, morpheus appears to be scaling and if anything performance is improving as the data density gets higher so the sharing surface can give you the content you want from closer and closer nodes. There may be an inflection point where it starts to really take off as the number of users is still improving the usability, performance and variety of content. Adam From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 11:49:07 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:49:07 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:51 AM -0700 8/3/01, Ray Dillinger wrote: >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >>>and wait for the next time something happens if you're on DHCP, or >>>they may have to get the cooperation of one or more other governments >>>if your login trail runs outside their jurisdiction -- but ultimately, >>>it's traceable. >> >>You apparently don't even understand how even simple remailer chains work. > >Hello, earth to Tim. > (1) You can send anonymous mail by sending it through a remailer, but > (2) The remailers themselves are not anonymous. Are you dense? Do you understand the concept of nested, encrypted text blocks? While the remailers may be "non-anonymous," this certainly does not mean that an external attacker can know the mapping from N arriving messages (encrypted) to N' departing messages (also encrypted, but not the same pattern). Do we have to draw a picture? Do you think that knowing the locations of, for example, all of the remailers in the world means that messages can be traced through the network? Have you even _thought_ about these issues which were explained a decade ago? Do you know about DC-Nets? > (3) If the remailers *were* anonymous, they could not operate > because then the users would not know where to send their mails. Actually, this is false. Pipenets and Blacknets don't require knowing locations/identities of nodes. Using alt.anonymous.messages is increasingly common. Go look at it if this is new to you. Left as an exercise, though oft-discussed here in past years, is how to post messages untraceably to it and how to read messages untraceably. (I used a variant of this for Blacknet in 1993.) > As long as the remailers themselves are traceable, make no mistake: >they exist only because the lions have not yet passed a law against them. > > You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law >behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is >traceable and pulpable by the law. > You haven't even bothered to think about the technical issues, have you? --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 11:58:25 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:58:25 -0700 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:54 PM -0500 8/3/01, Aimee Farr wrote: >Bear wrote, quoting me: >> I've got a nice protocol for running a fully-encrypted mailing list >> stegoized in images on a web/FTP site, which would be totally invisible >> to non-participants - but such a list can't be announced publicly >> so of course nobody could find out about it and join it, without >> also letting the law know about it and join it. > >Interesting. Banal, actually. >> And the list goes on. Every time you try to get something used by >> more than a dozen people, it cannot be secret. > >"Three make keep a secret, if two of them are dead." -- Benjamin Franklin, >1728. A platitude which misses the point of modern PK and DC-Net sort sorts of approaches. The "security" of chained remailers is of course not perfect, but it does not depend on the naive attacks which Ray Dillnger claims make the security as bad as he claims. Nor is his "stegoized mailing list" even the slightest bit interesting. Well-trod ground. What is it about some of you people who don't even bother to learn the basics? >> And regulation of anything on the internet can happen, because EVERY >> IP address is in principle traceable. Oh, it may take a week or >> two -- they may have to slap your ISP with an order to preserve logs >> and wait for the next time something happens if you're on DHCP, or >> they may have to get the cooperation of one or more other governments >> if your login trail runs outside their jurisdiction -- but ultimately, >> it's traceable. > >Hm. For an equally-relevant proposition, See United States v. White, 401 >U.S. 745 (1971); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). > >I've seen predictions that by 2005-7, your IP will be biometrically >associated. (I have nothing to back to that up, but the source was >credible.) IP addresses have nothing to do with attacks on remailers and DC-Nets. Do some reading. Start with Chaum's 1981 paper on untraceable e-mail, read at least the first 5 or 7 pages of his 1988 paper on dining cryptographers nets, and then move on to the other list-related sources. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From Lara at WirelessDeveloper.com Fri Aug 3 09:59:29 2001 From: Lara at WirelessDeveloper.com (Konny Zsigo) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:59:29 -0500 Subject: Update from Konny Zsigo Message-ID: <996857969.565@WirelessDeveloper.com> Hey...I want to give you an update on a number of things: 1. WirelessDeveloper 2001 is 3 weeks away; 11 DevCons from AT&T Wireless, Ericsson, Compaq, Openwave, TruePosition, RIM, Arch Wireless, PacketVideo, Pinpoint, Stonestreet One and Cream by Netpost. Aug 20-24, Silicon Valley, CA. See http://www.WirelessDeveloper2001.com. I'll be there the entire week along with all of my staff and would be happy to meet with you! 2. Do you need venture capital? We have 42 VCs signed up to receive your bus plans and most are coming to the show to book one-on-one meetings. It's free. See http://www.wirelessdeveloper2001.com/developer/meetingvcs.htm 3. Who should be Developer of the Year? We're taking nominations for the first annual Developer Choice Awards. 10 awards presented at the show. See http://www.wirelessdeveloper2001.com/developer/choice.asp 4. New Magazine! Our partner, Penton Media, is launching a new print magazine aptly called "WirelessDeveloper" - if you want a free trial subscription, reply to this email with Magazine in the subject and include your full contact info. I'll get you on the list. and now, Konny's take on the industry as a whole... As the President of WirelessDeveloper.com, I have the opportunity to talk to lots of developers, content providers, and others struggling to make the Wireless Internet a reality. It's been a shakeout year to be sure. Two guys with a Powerpoint presentation and a plan to capture "eyeballs" is a thing of the past. (but it was fun while it lasted). Now boring is beautiful. If you have a sustainable business model and cash flow you're golden. Don't think for a second that the VCs have fled the space, they're just more selective. They're looking for deals, but I'm hearing that that they're not swinging as hard and they don't want to go solo [translate that to $2m investments x 4 VCs instead of $8m investment from 1 VC]. But I'm not the expert...I've got experts coming to the WirelessDeveloper 2001 show that will give us the real scoop on how to play it. More news. A significant number of content providers have tanked this past year. There's more room on the homedecks and there's a major industry-wide move to monetize browser-based apps. Lots of initiatives, lots of approaches, lots of people looking over their shoulders. But it will happen, and it will happen this next year. You'll be able to submit a fee-based application, have the carrier collect the revenues and then get a revenue-share on the back-end. I think NTT DoCoMo embarrassed us into it. I hope you can make it to WirelessDeveloper 2001 this year. I'll have several guests on my TV Show (the Konny Zsigo show) and we'll explore all of these issues and more. If you can't make it, at least update me on your contact information and tell me what you're up to! Konny Zsigo, President WirelessDeveloper.com Konny at WirelessDeveloper.com =================================================== Sent by Lara to cypherpunks at toad.com If you couldn't care less about the Wireless Internet or just plain don't want to hear from me again, just reply with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject and I'll take you off my list. From Stealth123 at btamail.net.cn Fri Aug 3 12:04:08 2001 From: Stealth123 at btamail.net.cn (Stealth123 at btamail.net.cn) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:04:08 -0700 Subject: Bulk Friendly Hosting only $300 per month! Message-ID: <200108031852.CAA21105@server3> Bulk friendly hosting $300 per month. Advertise your website risk free! More visitors and business than you can imagine. Offshore server, never gets shut down. NO PORN OR CASINO. 100mb Space MYSQL SSL CGI PHP Perl FTP Access Linux Server Unlimited Bandwidth Front Page Extensions Resellers welcome. Reply with "99" in subject field for more info. To be removed, reply with "Remove" in the subject field. From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Fri Aug 3 10:05:46 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:05:46 -0500 Subject: Say here why Sklyarov should go free Message-ID: http://slashdot.org/features/01/08/02/2151216.shtml James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 12:07:23 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:07:23 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:43 PM +0200 8/3/01, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > >> (2) The remailers themselves are not anonymous. > >No, but to shut them down you have to know where they are, and to make >your intent known to operators of such. > >The remailers could reside in a state with a weak mutual enforcibility >(Eastern Block successor states, Israel, developing countries). The >remailers could be physically hidden in a large facility (of course, you >could always whip up a firewall filter blocking them), or be connecting >via 802.11b and successors. The remailers could be packaged as part of a >well-behaved worm, thus overwhelming detection and enforcement >capabilites. Just so. And some of the recent "remailers can't work" critics (Dillinger, Farr) are breathtakingly ignorant of what was common knowledge in 1992. Worse, they haven't heeded recommendations that they get themselves up to speed. There is no sign that even the technologies described above (wireless, throwaways, worm-based, surreptitious, etc.) are needed to achieve excellent untraceability. A distributed set of remailers in N different jurisdictions is quite robust against prosecutorial fishing expeditions, though not as robust as we want against attacks by much more capable adversaries. Ways to increase robustness have been discussed many times. (Increase N, increase pool sizes at each stage, adopt constant-bandwidth approaches like Pipenet, throw in wireless and "rooms full of remailers" approaches, even adopt DC-Net methods as cores for sub-nets.) Dillinger and Farr have described only sophomoric attacks. Even the remailers of 1995-6 defeated the Scientologists. Crap about IP addresses being traceable is just obfuscation to cover basic ignorance of how remailer networks work. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Fri Aug 3 10:08:46 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:08:46 -0500 Subject: SA plans hard line internet snooping legislation Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20828.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From jchoate at us.tivoli.com Fri Aug 3 10:10:00 2001 From: jchoate at us.tivoli.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:10:00 -0500 Subject: CD anti-piracy system can nuke hi-fi kit Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/20809.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate at tivoli.com From tomstdenis at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 12:21:54 2001 From: tomstdenis at yahoo.com (tom st denis) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hello list Message-ID: <20010803192154.3843.qmail@web14505.mail.yahoo.com> Is the discussion of cryptanalysis ok on this list? Tom __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From mmotyka at lsil.com Fri Aug 3 12:30:45 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:30:45 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. Message-ID: <3B6AFBE5.F3948B28@lsil.com> >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >>>and wait for the next time something happens if you're on DHCP, or >>>they may have to get the cooperation of one or more other governments >>>if your login trail runs outside their jurisdiction -- but ultimately, >>>it's traceable. >> >>You apparently don't even understand how even simple remailer chains work. > >Hello, earth to Tim. > (1) You can send anonymous mail by sending it through a remailer, but > (2) The remailers themselves are not anonymous. > (3) If the remailers *were* anonymous, they could not operate > because then the users would not know where to send their mails. > > As long as the remailers themselves are traceable, make no mistake: >they exist only because the lions have not yet passed a law against them. > This may yet be attempted but even so success is not a given. > You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law >behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is >traceable and pulpable by the law. > > Bear > I think you mean "palpable." I don't think pulpable is good usage but if by that you mean able to be made into pulp well, OK, it's funny. I haven't read the mixmaster source but it seems to me that end-to-end encryption protects the contents. The traffic analysis part seems vulnerable on two basic fronts : subversion of a node and overall low traffic levels. Nested encryption protects a subverted node from being able to trace the entire chain in one fell swoop. As long as there is one uncompromised node in a chain subversion doesn't guarantee a matchup of "from" and "to" but it improves the odds. With low traffic levels through a chain the statistics of traffic analysis are also improved. I like the idea of making a remailer part of a worm but it might be just as well to make it an inherent part of a product since people will attempt to eradicate a worm. Just imagine if Napster were still going full steam with a built-in remailer - huge node count and shitloads of traffic. Mike From hseaver at ameritech.net Fri Aug 3 10:43:04 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:43:04 -0500 Subject: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites References: Message-ID: <3B6AE294.2B36B295@ameritech.net> Whooooieee! Question authority, you *MUST* be a village idiot. Pretty strange attitude for someone on cpunks --- but pretty normal attitude for a lawyer. It's a sickness that comes from spending all that time reading such boring crap. Or maybe it's congenital --- maybe you have to be born with a predisposition to pomposity to be even able to spend all those hours absorbing all that case law. Gag! And, of course, judges are the logical extension of this. Sandy Sandfort wrote: > C'punks, > > So by my count it looks as though we are now up to at least THREE village > idiots. Each convinced that he knows the law (not in theory, but as > practiced in reality) better than the lawyers. > > There's a small black part of me that REALLY would enjoy seeing these three > arrogantly childish ignoramuses in the docket, pissing their pants when the > macho flash wears thin. > > Hey Jimbo, that LSAT "easy money" is still waiting for you to grow a pair. > > S a n d y -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 10:48:02 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:48:02 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim: > Some here are arguing that such publication constitutes "spoliation." > I have seen no cites that support this novel interpretation. > Publishing something, whether on Freenet or in Time, may trigger > later damage claims (as with violating copyrights), but it can hardly > be considered a kissing cousin to "destruction of evidence." Well, I didn't mean to argue that. We had several hypos going. My comments were in regard to unavailability techniques, not availability techniques. ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 10:54:21 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:54:21 -0500 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bear wrote, quoting me: > >Hiding or secrecy as a total strategy has historically been > limited by the > >Rule Of Secrets/Least Safe Principle, and the equally-important "well, > >doesn't this look suspicious!" -- a rule of natural law and human > >disposition. Crypto is not a person, object and asset > invisibility machine. > Ebay may be a good thing, but can you imagine how useless it would > be if it had to be kept secret from law-enforcement types? You'd > pretty much have to keep it secret from the whole public, and then > of course nobody would use it. I guess that would be flip-side of the Rule Of Secrets, or something. > I've got a nice protocol for running a fully-encrypted mailing list > stegoized in images on a web/FTP site, which would be totally invisible > to non-participants - but such a list can't be announced publicly > so of course nobody could find out about it and join it, without > also letting the law know about it and join it. Interesting. Just as interesting: -NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 448 (1958) -Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) -Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. Tate, 519 F.2d 1335 (3d Cir. 1975) -Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. American Tel. & Tel., (D.C.Cir. 1978) -Gordon v. Warren Consol. Bd. of Educ, 706 F.2d 778 (6th Cir. 1983) -Alliance to End Repression v. Chicago, 627 F.Supp. 1044 (N.D.Ill.1985) > And the list goes on. Every time you try to get something used by > more than a dozen people, it cannot be secret. "Three make keep a secret, if two of them are dead." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1728. > What cannot be > secret, you can't keep the law from knowing about. What you can't > keep the law from knowing about, you can't keep the law from trying > to regulate. That's probably one of those "universal truths" I've been talking about. *laughter* > And regulation of anything on the internet can happen, because EVERY > IP address is in principle traceable. Oh, it may take a week or > two -- they may have to slap your ISP with an order to preserve logs > and wait for the next time something happens if you're on DHCP, or > they may have to get the cooperation of one or more other governments > if your login trail runs outside their jurisdiction -- but ultimately, > it's traceable. Hm. For an equally-relevant proposition, See United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). I've seen predictions that by 2005-7, your IP will be biometrically associated. (I have nothing to back to that up, but the source was credible.) ~Aimee From remailer at remailer.xganon.com Fri Aug 3 10:57:40 2001 From: remailer at remailer.xganon.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:57:40 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites Message-ID: <7fb0718ab97ab47fe82eb311579d5436@remailer.xganon.com> Anonymous (nobody at remailer.privacy.at) typed: > However, you (black unicorn / unicorn at schloss.li / whatever) have made a variety of remarks which > could be seen, not too unreasonably, as being just a little bit > condescending. a kinder, gentler, black unicorn? fuck that. i have been on this list some six years. with some very rare exceptions unicorn's posts have been basically spot on every time i have seen them. and unless you are totally humor braindead they manage to combine good info with laugh out loud commentary. if it is at someones expense it is only so in a classy way. and they were pretty certain to be asking for it out loud anyway. wise up. it is the same 8 people constantly trying to derail the best content in this place with nothing but bullshit smoke and mirrors. it is the same 8 people constantly providing quality content in this place that they can actually back up with facts. we are lucky to have unicorn, broiles, farr, may, etc here. its assholes like jim choate that drive out only decent contributers and flood the list with 20+ useless url posts a day. ever wonder why people like eric hughes and john gilmore never seem to post much anymore? black gelding? i want that about as much as i want mister rogers defending me against a charge on one of these issues. here are some alphabet blocks. why dont you go turn barney back on now so the adults can get back to business. From hseaver at ameritech.net Fri Aug 3 11:17:21 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:17:21 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites References: <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <3B6AEA9A.C44A930E@ameritech.net> Greg Broiles wrote: > I think this is the really interesting leap here - from the ability of a > court to order production of documents, to the ability of a court to > control distribution of information. Exactly! But even for the court to order "the original and all copies" is a bit absurd -- how could they possibly determine how many is "all"? And what the heck is the "original" in this day and age? Most of the stuff I (and surely the vast majority of writers and journalists these days) create is just bits and bytes. You want the printed "original" -- gee, I've never printed one, but I will if you want me to -- how many "originals" do you want, and how many "copies"? Frankly, even I couldn't be *really, really* sure I had given them "all copies" -- I've got zipped files floating around all over the place, on backup tapes, stored on various machines, servers around the net, floppies in boxes I'll find years later, etc. (snip) > I think a response more appropriate than secrecy (with the attending > arguments about offshore trusts, the relationship between crosscut > shredders and cryptography, etc) would have been immediate, widespread > publication - via Freenet or Cryptome, if the local paper wasn't > interested. Then there's no more arguing over secret documents, and the > grand jury's free to read about it in the newspaper and ask the journalist > to come in and confirm that no details were altered during the editing > process. Or even disseminate it in encrypted form that the jury can't read, so what? The info is still protected from seizure, as it's beyond anyone's reach to retrieve "all copies". In some cases it might be provident to openly publish the info, in others not. I would think that in the case in question, someone in the jailed journalist's immediate circle would have already made copies and secreted them away, out of reach of the court. Maybe someone should tip them off to freenet/mojo. > > So don't fight the court where they're strong and you're weak - fight where > you're strong and the court is weak, e.g., about prior restraint of > publishing, rather than whether or not evidence was destroyed or withheld, > which might be a contempt proceeding, which includes very little "due > process" and no jury. Careful -- I got called a village idiot for suggesting essentially the same thing. > > > > I think a lot of the tension around "cypherpunks should think about law" or > "cypherpunks should not waste time on law" comes from different basic > assumptions - if you start out thinking that police are thugs and you have > no rights except the ones you enforce yourself, then all of this legal > discussion is a big distraction. Well, aren't they? See "Badge + Skinhead = Psycho" on my http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From georgemw at speakeasy.net Fri Aug 3 13:22:04 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:22:04 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> References: Message-ID: <3B6AA57C.9.110CDEB@localhost> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 5149 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Fri Aug 3 10:26:07 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:26:07 -0400 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, c ivilit Message-ID: > Paul E. Robichaux[SMTP:paul at robichaux.net] wrote > > Some animals really *are* more equal than others. Whether Uni has this > sense > or not[1], the fact remains that some contributors to this list produce > more > valuable material than others. Uni, Tim, Peter Trei, JYA, Sandy, and a > number > of other old-school c'punks have been making this list worth reading since > 1993 or so. Not every contribution is of equal value. > Let me echo Sandy - thank you! Peter Trei > Having said that, I took about a three-year hiatus from the list. When I > came > back, Choate was still choating, Tim & Sandy were still sniping at each > other, and Uni was still funny. Nice to be back at home. > > [1] He apparently doesn't, but would be entitled to have it if he wished. From real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Fri Aug 3 13:29:14 2001 From: real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (real at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:29:14 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: References: <163E38AD96AAC044B486CC084AEB0E1F01EA34@tornado.robichaux.l o cal> Message-ID: <3B6AA72A.12826.27BE9A@localhost> On 3 Aug 2001, at 9:16, Sandy Sandfort wrote: Paul E. Robichaux wrote: Is this Sandfort who came back on,or a Vulis look a like. > ...the fact remains that some > contributors to this list produce > more valuable material than others. > Uni, Tim, Peter Trei, JYA, Sandy, > and a number of other old-school > c'punks have been making this list > worth reading since 1993 or so... Thanks. It's a real honor to make your short list. > Having said that, I took about a > three-year hiatus from the list. > When I came back, Choate was still > choating, Tim & Sandy were still > sniping at each other, and Uni was > still funny. /Plus ca change, plus c'est la Mjme chose/ S a n d y From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Fri Aug 3 10:40:20 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:40:20 -0400 Subject: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. Message-ID: > Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] wrote > > From: "Nomen Nescio" > > > Black Unicorn wrote: > > > A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It > > > quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it > > > is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about > > > _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. > > > > Come now, surely justice, right, and wrong are lurking in there > > somewhere? > > Frustratingly, not in my experience. Sure, the good guy (whoever you > define > that to be) wins occasionally, but, as one supreme court justice put it, > while > declining to free a clearly innocent convicted murderer because there was > no > material error at trial: "The Constitution doesn't guarantee a correct > verdict, the Constitution guarantees due process." > [...] This sounds an awful lot like an institutional version of the Nuremburg Defence" "Ve vere only followink orders" If a Supreme knows that the system is f*cked up enough that he can't free an innocent man, there are two things he should do: 1. Call the President and request a pardon. 2. Call Congress and get the process changed so this doesn't happen again. There is no 'due process' if the system knowingly jails innocents. If they don't do this, they can't call themselves a 'Justice'. Heck - I'd consider the title 'human being' also in dispute. Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Fri Aug 3 10:40:20 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:40:20 -0400 Subject: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong. Message-ID: > Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] wrote > > From: "Nomen Nescio" > > > Black Unicorn wrote: > > > A legal education is the ultimate dose of practical cynicism. It > > > quickly becomes apparent not that the law isn't perfect, but that it > > > is often pretty damn screwed up. American jurisprudence is about > > > _fairness of process_, not justice, or right, or wrong. > > > > Come now, surely justice, right, and wrong are lurking in there > > somewhere? > > Frustratingly, not in my experience. Sure, the good guy (whoever you > define > that to be) wins occasionally, but, as one supreme court justice put it, > while > declining to free a clearly innocent convicted murderer because there was > no > material error at trial: "The Constitution doesn't guarantee a correct > verdict, the Constitution guarantees due process." > [...] This sounds an awful lot like an institutional version of the Nuremburg Defence" "Ve vere only followink orders" If a Supreme knows that the system is f*cked up enough that he can't free an innocent man, there are two things he should do: 1. Call the President and request a pardon. 2. Call Congress and get the process changed so this doesn't happen again. There is no 'due process' if the system knowingly jails innocents. If they don't do this, they can't call themselves a 'Justice'. Heck - I'd consider the title 'human being' also in dispute. Peter Trei From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Fri Aug 3 05:52:56 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:52:56 +0100 Subject: New (?) tric(k) for Internet Partitioning References: <4.1.20010803040217.0093b180@zebra.swip.net> Message-ID: <3B6A9EA8.3EA803A2@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Let's get this straight. The user pays the ISP. The ISP pays the content providers, according to some deal they work out between them. And they claim to have *patented* this not exactly earth-shattering and not all new in the slightest idea? When are they going to sue the satellite TV providers? This is just the same old big media company crap to try to take control of the Net. Some where in Stan Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy, one of the Martian colonists says "We didn't come all this way just to recreate Canada". Well *we* didn't come all this way just to recreate cable TV. "Mats O. Bergstrom" wrote: > > This Swedish entity believes it has found the solution > (patented) to the long standing problem of effortless > micropayments for web content. The solution is - > skip micropayments! - but let the ISP4s pay tax to > the content providers, the amount calculated from > the size of the ISP's customer base, regardless of > which sites the particular ISP customers actually > visit. So you need a World Association of Approved > Content Providers (WAACP) to share the tax profits. > > The tric(k) seems to be a method of technically > denying access to sites in the WADCP domain > to users who's ISP is not paying the taxes. Encryption, just like satellite TV, (supported in the USA by the Dubiously Moral Corporations Act), the police and the courts will be the agents of the content providers in defending their intellectual property. This raises the idea of Singapore and other strong-censorship states trying to stop *UN*encrypted net traffic at the border. Only approved content providers (who pay their taxes) are to be allowed to pass bits in front of the people's eyes. All ACPs will use approved encryption techniques, and the data will have digital signatures decryptable by Them (there is always a Them). They will take random samples of packets from the datastream, any originating IP address found to be sending significant numbers of unauthorised packets will be blocked. So inbound traffic from MSN or Murdoch or whoever will be fine, but traffic originating at an unapproved source will be filtered out even if it is coming in through proxies, blacknets, mixmasters or whatever, because sooner or later all those sites will be blocked. > One big problem is that providers of Not PC Content > naturally will be barred from the WADCP. The TV experience is the opposite of course. It is broadcast TV that is tightly regulated by governments, satellite & cable get away with more. Different governments and corporations have different ideas as to what is pukka. There was a time when Saudi Arabia would have blocked the BBC, and Singapore and even Malaysia have fallen out with the Economist in the past. (Actually the Economist has sometimes had a good laugh by publishing pictures of their paper as censored by the Saudis) So we have different kinds of protected digital signature, proclaiming content to be suitable for Tennessee or Trincomalee. The whole thing depends on strong encryption of course - but the ACPs will have to use methods approved by both telecoms providers and governments who will block anyone sending anything they don't recognise. It is still the case that the Net depends on hardware run by a relatively small number of international telecoms providers who are by their very nature hand-in-glove with government. They can't, AFAIK, filter all packets, Echelon or no Echelon, but they could bar ISPs who allowed naughty packets on (end of dial-up spam...) In Singapore and China it would be simple government fiat. In the USA it would be done by businesses who will say they are doing it to protect their customers, or to defend themselves against civil law suits, or to make their content internationally acceptable (there is going to be a lot of money in the Chinese market). But the end effect would be the same - a closed-off pay-per-view child-friendly government-friendly Rupert-Murdoch-friendly Cable-TV-alike Net carrying only DCMA-approved corporately-signed encrypted packets. Free exchange of information might take place within individual countries, or between subscribers to the same ISP, but would tend to be blocked at national or corporate boundaries. I don't think it will happen. If it does the cypherpunkly action will shift to Q-encryption, spoofing origins and cloaking content, making your packets look like someone else's from somewhere else. Such things will get harder to implement the more international routes there are and the more opportunities for routing around censorship-friendly states or telcos. Cable-laying ships are the vanguard of freedom :-) Ken Brown From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 3 13:53:14 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:53:14 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A73E8.17070.708BD1@localhost> References: <3B69E3E1.14134.513B9B@localhost> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010803135314.008abd50@pop.sprynet.com> At 09:50 AM 8/3/01 -0700, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > >Lots of people, among them various companies I worked for, have been doing equivalent things with shredders, selective backup, and so on and so forth, routinely destroying records, in part because excessive record keeping could become a disaster in any court case. > >Everyone is doing it, no one has been charged. > After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter official policy to destroy email after N days. As if Ollie et al. wasn't enough. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 3 04:57:03 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:57:03 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200108021626.f72GQcI14144@mailserver1a> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug -1 pablo-escobar at hushmail.com wrote: > Use their spy cameras against dem. Learn dem to see ninjas. When dey Actually, I'm thinking about using webcams streaming frame sequences offsite (and sending video stills to your PDA via wireless) once the interframe delta goes over threshold. And, of course, the low tech means to detect unauthenticated entry, which don't need juice to operate. > come in 'da middel of 'da nite have it shoot automatica guns wit armor > piercing tips. If you fail to authenticate properly, you could trigger a rack of frontloaders, made from plumbing pipes. (But, what happen when you come home staggering drunk, and fail to authenticate properly?) Or, clad your door with copper foil (against portable radar), and a layer of high explosive. > Dig a tunnel so you can escape. Treet dem to killing infrasound from Trapdoor chute. Brings you out of the direct impact zone of the surprise packages you've left behind. > a leaf blowr grande whissel berried in your front jard. Hmm. Alumoorganics/jellied gasoline squirted through a steel burst membrane, driven by a low-temp pyrocharge? But that's clean torch the entire neighborhood. From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 3 14:02:34 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 14:02:34 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010803140234.008a0100@pop.sprynet.com> At 10:51 AM 8/3/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: > >Hello, earth to Tim. > (1) You can send anonymous mail by sending it through a remailer, but > (2) The remailers themselves are not anonymous. > (3) If the remailers *were* anonymous, they could not operate > because then the users would not know where to send their mails. > > As long as the remailers themselves are traceable, make no mistake: >they exist only because the lions have not yet passed a law against them. > > You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law >behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is >traceable and pulpable by the law. > > Bear Our ursine friend neglects the use of broadcast. Consider: An ephemeral anonymous remailer entrypoint (Bob) publishes half a PK pair. Alice stegos a message using Bob's key and a snapshot she takes, and posts it to something widely received, and with some memory. Bob (and only Bob) sees the message, waits a bit, and reinjects it into the System, where it bounces around, encrypted, until it gets released to its destination. Bob can't actually read the message because its inside more crypto envelopes. ..... Yes it would be insecure with sufficient subversion, as all things. From decoy at iki.fi Fri Aug 3 04:28:30 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:28:30 +0300 (EEST) Subject: *Protecting* civil liberties with facial recognition In-Reply-To: <200108021243.FAA06227@toad.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, John Gilmore wrote: >Luckily, picturephones never caught on -- or Ma Bell would be working hand >in hand with the government to monitor every citizen's every phone call, >and compare who's on it with the FBI and NSA watch list. Don't forget UMTS mobile, likely to catch on fairly quickly in Europe and Japan. One of the primary marketing points is the ability to transmit lowres video. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 3 05:45:06 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:45:06 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: archive? Re: Adversaries Would Find Other Attack Methods, Game Theory Shows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Um, do we have a decent archive, reaching back in time as far as possible, preferably snarfable as raw inbox or a tarball? (did I already mention that my connectivity sucks?). TIA, Eugene From bear at sonic.net Fri Aug 3 14:47:09 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3B6AFBE5.F3948B28@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >I like the idea of making a remailer part of a worm but it might be just >as well to make it an inherent part of a product since people will >attempt to eradicate a worm. And succeed. How many copies of "melissa" have you seen lately? Coding a remailer, *and* coding a worm, for just one week's worth of play before they stomp it, is not worthwhile. Bear From zeeb40uk at yahoo.co.uk Fri Aug 3 07:16:28 2001 From: zeeb40uk at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Zenab=20Abacha?=) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:16:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: Assistance Message-ID: <20010803141628.9077.qmail@web20205.mail.yahoo.com> Dear one, Permit me to inform you that after reading your add in the net.I become intrested in doing business with you.I am 25 years old ,the daughter of late Dr wilson Kabaka, the former chief accountant to the Sierra-Leone gold copration in kenama , who was assassinated by the RUF rebels during his visit to our village on April 6 2000. Unfortunately my mother died for hypertension three weeke later here in Abidjan and befor then my mother has already advised me and my younger sister Diana to look for a forign partner to transfer this fund and invest in abroad. I inheritad a total sum of $18;5 million us dollars from my late beloved father as the next of kin to my family.This money which is concealed in a matallic trunk box was deposited with a security company here in Abidjan under a special arrangements as family treasure.This means that the security company does not know the real content of the box which was brought from Sierra-Leone under diplomatic coverage. Now that we are in Abidjan and verified the deposit , we need your assistance to help us move this funds out for investment in your country as we can not invest here due to its nearness to our country and the war still going on there .we ask you to scout for a valuable and lucrative business , so that we can invest wisely . We have in mind to give you 10% of the total sum of us $ 18.5 million , and 5 % for any expenses which you will make in course of this transaction, fax messages,phone calls air tickets etc . By this mail you are now requested to arrange on how we can move the fund quick to your account in your country for investment . there is need for urgent actions because I pay us $ 100 daily as demurrage to the security company for keeping this consignment . Looking for your urgent response . Yours sincerely Miss Susan Kabaka ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie From rsw at MIT.EDU Fri Aug 3 12:20:46 2001 From: rsw at MIT.EDU (Riad S. Wahby) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:20:46 -0400 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: ; from aimee.farr@pobox.com on Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 12:54:21PM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20010803152045.A11596@positron.mit.edu> Aimee Farr wrote: > I've seen predictions that by 2005-7, your IP will be biometrically > associated. (I have nothing to back to that up, but the source was > credible.) I'm quite skeptical. As I see it, there would be two general ways of doing this: 1) Each person has his/her own static IP address that is inextricably linked to his/her biometric data. 2) One presents biometric credentials in order to use a particular IP address, and a system similar to DNS can be used to resolve IP addresses to biometric credentials (or perhaps, all network admins are required to keep logs of who was using what IP address at what time). (1) is clearly impossible, if only because all currently-used routing protocols would be broken. Imagine if I (18.243.0.246) went to visit a friend at CMU (128.2.11.43). How would packets to me be routed? Admittedly, there is Mobile IP, a protocol that allows me to roam with a static IP address, but it was never popularized because DHCP administration is easier and has fewer nasty, subtle problems. (2) is also not likely. It doesn't seem that the government could get away with requiring network admins to keep logs or run servers all the time any more than they could get away with running carnivore on every major ISP all the time. Perhaps in specific cases they could, with the aid of a warrant, force a certain provider to track all information pertaining to a specific IP address, but this is far from "your IP will be biometrically associated." Even if a few governments succeeded in forcing this sort of thing, there are several ways of getting around it. Perhaps the best is mixnets, but a simpler (albeit weaker) solution is to just get an offshore shell account and run an SSH tunnel to a proxy there. Hell, that's more or less the way that I get access to the internet at work, and I'm sure you'd have a hard time finding out what the IP address of the machine at which I'm currently sitting is without compromising my proxy machine. Perhaps I'm totally off-base with all of this. Are there already protocols out there for linking biometric data to IP address? A quick google search didn't turn anything up, but I might have missed something. -- Riad Wahby rsw at mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105 From gbroiles at well.com Fri Aug 3 15:24:20 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:24:20 -0700 Subject: CodeRed Fix In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20010803180326.0154af78@ct2.nai.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803151656.036fbd30@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 06:03 PM 8/3/2001 -0400, Wilfred L. Guerin wrote: >Moreso, if noone is competant to have yet done this, can anyone provide an >EXTREMELY stable high-load capacity box which can accept reporting of >infected hosts? -- This would be highly useful in the target analysis of >the worm's progress... see , or . -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 15:26:21 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:26:21 -0700 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 3:30 PM -0500 8/3/01, Aimee Farr wrote: >Tim May: > >> At 12:54 PM -0500 8/3/01, Aimee Farr wrote: >> >Bear wrote, quoting me: >> >> >> I've got a nice protocol for running a fully-encrypted mailing list >> >> stegoized in images on a web/FTP site, which would be totally >> invisible >> >> to non-participants - but such a list can't be announced publicly >> >> so of course nobody could find out about it and join it, without >> >> also letting the law know about it and join it. >> > >> >Interesting. >> >> Banal, actually. > >Maybe to you, Tim, but I was looking at it from a different perspective. > >First, in regard to dissident group bulletproofing, so as to provide the >greatest First Amendment associational protections. (I suspect some of you >get your legal advice from the government.) And, also in regard to dissident >group surveillance. This list has been affected by recent events, and >"subjectively chilled." While it is not the first time for such things, the >effects on group dynamics are of interest to me. You need to learn about the severe limitations of "security through obscurity." An encrypted list, or a stegoized list, is not secure if it is open to various subscribers. Weakest link math, obviously. The crypto name is, as I said, "security through obscurity." Kirchoff's Principle by another name, essentially. (The only reason we have sometimes considered having an encrypted list is to a) weed out those unwilling to figure out how to do PGP, b) make PGP use more widespread. The notion of keeping the contents "secret" was not even debated seriously.) Sociobabble handwaving about "effects on group dynamics" doesn't change this. So you think that just throwing in some words about "value propositions" and "conversational economics" is the way to put forward a real idea or argument? Looks like bullshitting to me. Like the output of an Internet rant generator. > >Second, I would like to see the conversational economic theories at work in >a protected list. Sociobabble. First, an encrypted or stegoized list would not be protected. See above. Second, it has nothing to do with "conversational economic theories" (?). >Third, many of your concepts were harbingers of a shift where people take >costly evasive maneuvers to protect what is legal, and traditionally >highly-valued speech and association (being critical of the government). >Your ideas are being implemented, or examined, often by ordinary people with >less spectacular motives and aims. So, the more "trodden," "banal," >.....[insert Tim Mayism here]...something is to you, the more interesting it >is to me. You are blithering. I don't think you have the foggiest idea what is being talked about. And instead of learning, you just blither. >> >> IP addresses have nothing to do with attacks on remailers and DC-Nets. > >Okay. > >> Do some reading. > >I read a lot, Tim. My practice areas don't come neatly packaged. I realize >your frustration with me, and can only beg your understanding and tolerance, >although I have low expectations in this regard. You keep apologizing. Is this some kind of chick thang? Instead of "begging tolerance," do some very _basic_ reading. Once you grok what remailer networks are all about, you'll (maybe) have an epiphany that all the yammer about IP addresses defeating remailers is nonsense. And once you grok the idea of how sending encrypted mail out to list of N people, where N is 100 or more, and where subscription is lightly controlled, is pointless. (In fact, cell sizes as small as 3 are infiltrated, but this is an issue I don't have the desire to get into here.) > (Picking on me is about as >sporty as shooting turtles in a stock tank.) I could never match the >technical skillsets or understanding of this list, please forgive me for my >sins. Yea, I know not what I do..... I am aware of my shortcomings, (!!!) >and I do appreciate your taking the effort to try to help me with my >conceptualization. You often do so, and I note your good intentions, even >when they come with a few well-placed darts. Stop fucking apologizing you stupid twit. >> Start with Chaum's 1981 paper on untraceable e-mail, >> read at least the first 5 or 7 pages of his 1988 paper on dining >> cryptographers nets, and then move on to the other list-related >> sources. > >Perhaps I can contribute in other areas, Tim. I will try to do better. I >mean that sincerely. Stop apologizing. Instead of blithering about "conversational economics" and "value propositions" and "I'm sorry," spend ONE FUCKING HOUR reading the most basic of all papers, a paper now 20 years old. I gave you the subject, year, and author. (Hint: It was Webbed as of a few months ago. I just checked: it still is. But rather than even expect you to find it, here it is: http://world.std.com/~franl/crypto/chaum-acm-1981.html) If this paper uses terminology too distant from later Cypherpunks technology, read any of the 1992-93 articles folks like Eric Hughes, Hal Finney, and myself wrote. Or read my Cyphernomicon entries on how remailers work. (I fully expect you to announce that you _do_ understand how they work. But clearly you don't, else you wouldn't have commented that biometric IP linking will be a problem. A _real_ legal issue, one we have discussed many times, is the constitutionality of a law requiring accountability for all forwarded messages. A law requiring all chunks of text to be traceable to a true name violates the usual 1st A protections, supported by the Supremes when they have struck down laws requiring handbills to have true names attached. Not to mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as an exercise for you.) >You are a the leader of a pack of prize jackasses that pick on cripples in >here. *REAL* SUBVERSIVES have a gentlemanly demeanor (at least the decency >of pretense). Are you calling yourself a cripple? Not even I have called you a cripple. You've shown no willingness to learn the most basic of things. You can't add legal advice that is useful if you don't even understand the most basic of things we talk about. In fact, your legal advice is almost certainly misleading if you don't even understand how nested remailers work, and why IP addresses aren't included in remailed messages, and why the robustness and obfuscation of a network of N remailers each pooling-and-remailing M messages goes _roughly_ as N^M. Thus, a nested hop through 10 remailers around the world, each pooling 10 incoming messages (of the same size after padding), would give an attacker _roughly_ 10 billion paths to follow. I keep saying "roughly" because there are numerous things that cut this down, not the least of which is that there aren't likely to be even tens of thousands of messages per day flowing through the world's remailers until there are a lot more of them, etc. And so an attacker cannot see a diffusivity of 10^10. But he also certainly cannot easily say which exiting message maps to which entering message. And there are the methods we so often have discussed: route messages through some remailers multiple times, send dummy messages at intervals, use your own machine as a remailer, and so on. It doesn't take long to see that the diffusivity (untraceability) can be very large very quickly and cheaply. And, no, no biometric or IP information is attached! If you have not grokked the idea of anonymous remailers, how can you comment on legal issues facing them? As for your "torching" your work because I hurt your feelings, show some fucking backbone. If you are right, you don't need the moral support of others. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From mmotyka at lsil.com Fri Aug 3 15:29:14 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:29:14 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. References: Message-ID: <3B6B25BA.C67FD2FC@lsil.com> Ray Dillinger wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > > >I like the idea of making a remailer part of a worm but it might be just > >as well to make it an inherent part of a product since people will > >attempt to eradicate a worm. > > And succeed. How many copies of "melissa" have you seen lately? > > Coding a remailer, *and* coding a worm, for just one week's worth > of play before they stomp it, is not worthwhile. > > Bear > I think the "well behaved worm" prescribed by Tim might live longer since I read that as unobtrusive and generally benign but for some tolerable amount of bandwidth. Still, it would fall short of the effect you'd get if it were in a product that every teenager on the planet wanted to run. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 13:30:00 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:30:00 -0500 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim May: > At 12:54 PM -0500 8/3/01, Aimee Farr wrote: > >Bear wrote, quoting me: > > >> I've got a nice protocol for running a fully-encrypted mailing list > >> stegoized in images on a web/FTP site, which would be totally > invisible > >> to non-participants - but such a list can't be announced publicly > >> so of course nobody could find out about it and join it, without > >> also letting the law know about it and join it. > > > >Interesting. > > Banal, actually. Maybe to you, Tim, but I was looking at it from a different perspective. First, in regard to dissident group bulletproofing, so as to provide the greatest First Amendment associational protections. (I suspect some of you get your legal advice from the government.) And, also in regard to dissident group surveillance. This list has been affected by recent events, and "subjectively chilled." While it is not the first time for such things, the effects on group dynamics are of interest to me. Second, I would like to see the conversational economic theories at work in a protected list. Third, many of your concepts were harbingers of a shift where people take costly evasive maneuvers to protect what is legal, and traditionally highly-valued speech and association (being critical of the government). Your ideas are being implemented, or examined, often by ordinary people with less spectacular motives and aims. So, the more "trodden," "banal," .....[insert Tim Mayism here]...something is to you, the more interesting it is to me. > >> And the list goes on. Every time you try to get something used by > >> more than a dozen people, it cannot be secret. > > > >"Three make keep a secret, if two of them are dead." -- Benjamin > Franklin, > >1728. > > A platitude which misses the point of modern PK and DC-Net sort sorts > of approaches. The "security" of chained remailers is of course not > perfect, but it does not depend on the naive attacks which Ray > Dillnger claims make the security as bad as he claims. Nor is his > "stegoized mailing list" even the slightest bit interesting. I'm sure you are aware that some disagree with you, Tim. In a rather significant way. I wish they found it less interesting, too. But, they don't. > Well-trod ground. What is it about some of you people who don't even > bother to learn the basics? > >I've seen predictions that by 2005-7, your IP will be biometrically > >associated. (I have nothing to back to that up, but the source was > >credible.) > > IP addresses have nothing to do with attacks on remailers and DC-Nets. Okay. > Do some reading. I read a lot, Tim. My practice areas don't come neatly packaged. I realize your frustration with me, and can only beg your understanding and tolerance, although I have low expectations in this regard. (Picking on me is about as sporty as shooting turtles in a stock tank.) I could never match the technical skillsets or understanding of this list, please forgive me for my sins. Yea, I know not what I do..... I am aware of my shortcomings, (!!!) and I do appreciate your taking the effort to try to help me with my conceptualization. You often do so, and I note your good intentions, even when they come with a few well-placed darts. > Start with Chaum's 1981 paper on untraceable e-mail, > read at least the first 5 or 7 pages of his 1988 paper on dining > cryptographers nets, and then move on to the other list-related > sources. Perhaps I can contribute in other areas, Tim. I will try to do better. I mean that sincerely. I pitched a paper on these spoliation concepts many months back and was awarded with 10,000 words in a legal pub. However, you intimidated me to the extent that I promptly torched my efforts. Had you not done so, perhaps I could have contributed something more substantial to this thread. As for spoliation, DO SOME READING TIM, you comments are BANAL, ACTUALLY. You are a the leader of a pack of prize jackasses that pick on cripples in here. *REAL* SUBVERSIVES have a gentlemanly demeanor (at least the decency of pretense). ~Aimee From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 3 12:48:59 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The real enemies of the poor Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: Jim wrote: > In this context I meant "personality" as in demeanor and attitude, not > scholarship and competence. >Opposite sides of the same coin... I suppose "attitude" can be ambiguous, but it's hardly relevant! Being obnoxious, unpleasant, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you know enough about a subject to be worth listening to. Not to name names, but I've met several brilliant people who literally make me want to run whenever I see them coming--but whom I nevertheless respect to the bottom of my shoes for their sheer brainpower. (And in case you haven't noticed, I'm definitely not a respectful sort in general, so it means something.)Thoroughly looking forward to hearing what a person has to say and actively, intensely disliking them is not contradictory in the slightest... > >Your waste of time is somebodies > >jewel of the Nile (I have these images of Creationist books I've read > >flashing through my mind, very unpleasant). > So do you keep on finding more of the same or have you got on to >something of more value to you? >I keep hoping I'll run across a 'new' creationist theory, but they all >boil down to the same old same old. I don't remember the last time >I finished one of the books . Of course the same can be said about most >books, technical or not. And no, I'm not a creationist of any bent outside >of the pantheist sort (ie Gaia). I'd say that only about 10% of all books >are worth reading. Of those 10%, 90% of their content is wrong (and hence >interesting in the sense of why they are wrong)..which really gets down to >the crux of the matter for me. Not why they got it right, but why they >failed. Good point. I'm an atheist, but I think Aquinas can worth reading. Marcel (the Mystery of Being), Bataille (Inner Experience), Unamuno(Tragic Sense of Life), Kierkegaard (Either/Or), Heidegger (Sein und Zeit) Schopenhauer (complete works!) also come instantly to mind. I usually have no patience for anything mystical, but these authors have been very valuable to me. Several orders of magnitude above the usual religious mush. >Unfortunately most readers focus on what they like, the positive aspect of >the experience, and not the negative. Which from an analytic/comprehension >perspective is a stronger viewpoint (or at least seems so to me). Right--never let anyone do your thinking for you. > >And there's looking for corroborating evidence... :) > Well we all do whether we intend to or not: no matter how much you try > there's no getting out from under your experience. >I disagree, see Newtons comments about hypothesis and playing with stones on a beach. More on this in future posts. > but to avoid re-inventing the wheel. "If I have seen further than > others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." you know? >That's not what he meant by that. He was saying that what he did was not >in and of itself his creation. He was objecting to credit being given the >'Lion of England' when it wasn't the Lion's due (why in his later life he >began to publish anonymously). Hm, okay. Nevertheless, I think the point remains. >Unfortunately this can't be said of most >people. Most people will take credit for whatever they can and then >advertise it widely. One of the most popular strategies is to 'let them >think it was their idea'. True. But an overwhelmingly large percentage of concepts floating around your head and populating your mental landscape (so to speak) came from somewhere else: if you're creative and original, you make new ones out of the building blocks of the old. But they didn't just pop out of thin air. > Recommending books, on the other hand, has to do with getting people to > share an aspect of your mental context. Like that book I recommended on > MOUT awhile back: it's not that I agree with its conclusions or the > ideology behind it--it's just that it made a powerful impression on the > way I think about some of the issues that are most important to me, and >went a long way toward providing valuable information I didn't already >have. Why wouldn't I be interested in spreading it around. >I'm not saying you shouldn't spread it around. I disagree on your 'mental >context'. I don't suggest that another person should read a book to >understand me per se, but rather to escape the singular view point we all >have. Singular viewpoint?? How so! Talk about different mental contexts... And then, there's always the even less noble-minded egocentric motivation for recommending books: "read as I read, so you may come to think as I do". Discourse as narcissistic propaganda: probably a more common motivation that anyone would like to admit. >For me, the best thing that could happen is that somebody else read >it and comes to a different conclusion. It is the dialog that follows that >gives the book worth. Something greater than the authors intent, or my own >personality happens then. I think most works that are complex and rich inspire that.. like the ones I mentioned above. >The problem is that many equate reading (even a >lot) >with understanding, and in actuality too few people question vigorously >enough to ever really 'understand' anything. Couldn't agree more. >It's not uncommon in our society to hear people say 'He said ...' but they >themselves can't explain it in their own terms and context. They can >regurgitate, they can't cogitate. Dogma and pedantry. It's why 'arguments >from authority are useless' is such a strong tool with respect to >deductive/synthetic analysis. I'm not disagreeing with that at all; I think the real sticking point here gets back to the assumptions which led you to bring up the idea of "singular viewpoint" and the relative meaning(s) of subjective value judgements. I bet a lot would be made clearer to me if you could just back up a little and go into that. ~Faustine. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 3 14:05:32 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:05:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > As long as the remailers themselves are traceable, make no mistake: > they exist only because the lions have not yet passed a law against them. > > You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law > behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is > traceable and pulpable by the law. Exactly, which is why the 'small world' network model applied to key management is such a powerful tool. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 16:09:19 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:09:19 -0700 Subject: Worms and wireless remailers In-Reply-To: <3B6B25BA.C67FD2FC@lsil.com> References: <3B6B25BA.C67FD2FC@lsil.com> Message-ID: At 3:29 PM -0700 8/3/01, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >Ray Dillinger wrote: >> >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >> >> >I like the idea of making a remailer part of a worm but it might be just >> >as well to make it an inherent part of a product since people will >> >attempt to eradicate a worm. >> >> And succeed. How many copies of "melissa" have you seen lately? >> >> Coding a remailer, *and* coding a worm, for just one week's worth >> of play before they stomp it, is not worthwhile. >> >> Bear >> >I think the "well behaved worm" prescribed by Tim might live longer >since I read that as unobtrusive and generally benign but for some >tolerable amount of bandwidth. Still, it would fall short of the effect >you'd get if it were in a product that every teenager on the planet >wanted to run. I wasn't the one to suggest a worm in this recent debate. Someone else did. I included worms in the general list of ways remailers and mixes may be more ubiquitously spread: wireless, piggbacked on corporate networks, throwaway boxes, etc. (I'm steering clear of the weirder approaches: boxes hidden on the roofs of corporations and communicating with 802.11b, cards added to multiprocessor racks, etc. One weird approach that I discussed many years ago for a data haven approach some friends of mine were trying to get rolling, pre-Cypherpunks, is now much more feasible: imagine a simple Apple Airport (802.11 and variants) set up in San Diego, near the border with Tijuana. In fact, the cities run together, separated by a fence. An Airport- or Wavelan-equipped computer in San Diego is on the same local area network as one in an apartment building a few hundred feet away in TJ. Bounce packets back and forth, confusing jurisdictional issues with each hop EVEN IF LOGS are kept and court orders are issued. Of course, can do the same thing at the Canadian border, at other borders. I don't advocate that wireless methods be the backbone, as ordinary bouncing of packets around the world to many jurisdictions already does this, but it sure does make the point graphically about how hard it is to control the flow of bits.) Other wireless technologies include Bluetooth, packet radio, cellphone dial-ups, FRS radio, Ricochet (now defunct, alas), and of course various satellite links. (Most of these wireless links look a lot like ordinary machine to machine links...but the wireless transmission adds a bit to understanding how a "broadcast" mechanism doesn't have to know who is receiving. An important issue for alleged traceability issues.) By the way, broadcast mechanisms are much more than just physical RF or photon broadcasts. Usenet is a broadcast system. I called this the "Democracy Wall" approach in my 1990 presentation at the Hackers Conference. All of these things are easy to imagine (see my 1988 Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, for example) once the fundamental operation of remailer networks is grokked. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 14:10:27 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:10:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6AEA9A.C44A930E@ameritech.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote: > Frankly, even I couldn't be *really, really* sure I had given them "all > copies" -- I've got zipped files floating around all over the place, on backup > tapes, stored on various machines, servers around the net, floppies in boxes I'll > find years later, etc. And if the court doesn't believe you, issues a order directing the confiscation and search by LEA's of that material and they find something on those archives you're goose just got cooked. Those will be years later in jail. The courts generaly expect you to expend whatever resources you need providing the materials they request. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 3 14:13:07 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:13:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > Dillinger and Farr have described only sophomoric attacks. Even the > remailers of 1995-6 defeated the Scientologists. > > Crap about IP addresses being traceable is just obfuscation to cover > basic ignorance of how remailer networks work. I'd suggest they take a look at ipchains/iptables in Linux. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From mike at mchambers.ndo.co.uk Fri Aug 3 08:13:12 2001 From: mike at mchambers.ndo.co.uk (mr.mike chambers) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:13:12 +0100 Subject: ex directory number Message-ID: <000801c11c2e$d1326a20$51eb07c3@MIKECHAMBERS> HI, I HOPE YOU CAN HELP I AM LOOKING FOR A TELEPHONE NUMBER IN STOKE ON TRENT. THE NAME IS MR.J.R.PASK REGARDS MS F.PASK -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 675 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 3 14:14:36 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:14:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Too much time on their hands up in the North Woods (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:19:33 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: Digital Bearer Settlement List , dcsb at ai.mit.edu, cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: Too much time on their hands up in the North Woods --- begin forwarded text From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 3 13:17:34 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Cautionary Ontological Approach To Technology of Gabriel Marcel Message-ID: The Cautionary Ontological Approach To Technology of Gabriel Marcel http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Tech/TechGend.htm ABSTRACT: I present the arguments of Gabriel Marcel which are intended to overcome the potentially negative impact of technology on the human. Marcel is concerned with forgetting or rejecting human nature. His perspective is metaphysical. He is concerned with the attitude of the "mere technician" who is so immersed in technology that the values which promote him as an authentic person with human dignity are discredited, omitted, denied, minimized, overshadowed, or displaced. He reviews the various losses in ontological values which curtail the full realization of the human person in his dignity. The impact of technology leads too often to a loss of the sense of the mystery of being and self, authenticity and integrity, the concrete and the existential, truth and dialogue, freedom and lover, humanity and community, fidelity and creativity, the natural and the transcendent, commitment and virtue, respect of the self and responsiveness to others, and especially of the spiritual and the sacred. Thus, the task of the philosopher is to be a watchman, un veilleur, on the alert for a hopeful resolution of the human predicament. From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 15:36:35 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:36:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: update.550 (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:13:49 -0400 (EDT) From: AIP listserver To: physnews-mailing at aip.org Subject: update.550 PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 550 August 1, 2001 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James Riordon ELEMENT 118 HAS BEEN ERASED FROM THE PERIODIC TABLE. [SSZ: text deleted] INSECT SENSES SUGGEST NOVEL NEURAL NETWORKS. Animals gather information about their environments when sensory neurons fire minute electrical signals in response to chemicals, light, sounds, and other stimuli. Studying networks of neurons in animals and insects can provide us with insight to the natural world as well as inspiration for manmade networks to aid in computing and other applications. A new model of neural networks, based on recent studies of fish and insect olfactory systems, suggests a way that neurons can be linked together to allow them to identify many more stimuli than possible with conventional networks. Researchers from the Institute for Nonlinear Science at the University of California, San Diego (M. Rabinovich, mrabinovich at ucsd.edu, 858-534-6753) propose that connections between neurons can cause one neuron to delay the firing of another neuron. As a result, a given stimulus leads to a specific time sequence of neural impulses. In essence, the interconnected neurons include time as another dimension of sensory systems through an encoding method called Winnerless Competition (WLC). Using a locust antenna lobe exposed to fragrances such as cherry and mint for comparison, the researchers found their model could identify roughly (N-1)! (equal to (N-1) x (N-2) x ...x 2) items with a network built of N neurons. That is, a ten neuron WLC network should be able to identify hundreds of thousands as many items as a conventional ten-neuron network, and the benefits increase as networks grow. The WLC model helps explain how the senses of animals, insects, and even humans can accurately and robustly distinguish between so many stimuli. In other words, it is a mathematical rationale as to why a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet---but doesn't smell like an onion. Ultimately, the WLC model may lead to high capacity, potent computing networks that resemble an insect antenna or a human nose more than a desktop PC. (M. Rabinovich et al, Physical Review Letters, 6 August 2001) THE MOST PRECISELY LOCATED ASTRONOMICAL OBJECT [SSZ: text deleted] DELIVERY OF SINGLE ATOMS ON DEMAND is now possible. Physicists at the University of Bonn hold cold cesium atoms in a magneto-optic trap, but can shuttle the neutral atoms, one a time, with great control over distances up to a centimeter by shifting an additional laser-light interference pattern serving as local potential well. This kind of conveyor belt for atoms is expected to be of help in various quantum entanglement experiments or as part of an atomic shift register. (Kuhr et al., Science, 13 July 2001; kuhr at iap.uni- bonn.de.) From bear at sonic.net Fri Aug 3 17:48:59 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:48:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3B6AFBE5.F3948B28@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >Nested encryption protects a subverted node from being able to trace the >entire chain in one fell swoop. Take your focus off the individual message. Okay? Now look at the system, the infrastructure, that you need to send that message anonymously. It relies on identifiable remops existing at known addresses. Known to the people sending messages == known to the cops. If the law wants to take this thing down, they will not be attacking the strongest point -- ie, trying to trace individual messages. Instead, they will attack the weakest point -- trying to drive remailer operators out of business and thus destroy the infrastructure you need. That is the threat model I'm concerned about, and given that network monitoring is now automatable and cheap, it is entirely do-able. >As long as there is one uncompromised node in a chain subversion doesn't >guarantee a matchup of "from" and "to" but it improves the odds. So what? A move by the g8 to protect the "global infrastructure" of the Internet, (polspeak for protecting their ability to control what the sheep think) followed by laws passed in individual countries, would force remops to operate solely in "rogue states", and messages to and from them could be screened out pretty simply. Bear From niteswimming at hotmail.com Fri Aug 3 18:00:45 2001 From: niteswimming at hotmail.com (Erik Viking) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:00:45 -0700 Subject: Chase-Durer problems Message-ID: I saw the ad for Chase Durer watches on your website and just wanted to say that while the watch I have looks good, it has broken three times in the first 7 months of ownership. Now the company will not even give me a replacement without me paying to ship it to them AGAIN! Just a waring, they haven't given very good customer service to me. Buy a Luminox or Brietling instead. I have both and they are bulletproof. Thanks MS _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From Wilfred at Cryogen.com Fri Aug 3 15:03:26 2001 From: Wilfred at Cryogen.com (Wilfred L. Guerin) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:03:26 -0400 Subject: CodeRed Fix Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010803180326.0154af78@ct2.nai.net> Greetings all... I ask a simple and profoundly obvious question... With eeye and others releaseing codeRed src almost a month ago, has anyone bothered to modify the worm and bother distributing (by force) the file checked by the current worm which will suppress its operation? This is such an obvious fix, however noone seems to have yet had a clue to do it? Now that some of my boxes are being bothered with CRed noise, I'm prone to creating a secondary replacement worm, mass distributing it, and using it to squelch the bullshit of this one... If that many can be infected by using a psuedo-random sequence, this could be easily traced or more effectively a far more effective sequencing pattern for the disbersal could be utilized... Moreso, if noone is competant to have yet done this, can anyone provide an EXTREMELY stable high-load capacity box which can accept reporting of infected hosts? -- This would be highly useful in the target analysis of the worm's progress... Granted, this is a distributed infiltration mechanism, however, I somehow doubt the stateside feds and other morons would be contradicting of ceasing a distributed attack, even if we do not bother to stop the wh.gov targeting... It's wasting our resources, hastling all of us, etc. So... two things: A: Has anyone bothered to do this yet. B: If I am personally gonna have to deal with this bs, can anyone offer a logging-server target to send reports to? I shall await reply to the CDR lists, or direct to "Wilfred at Cryogen.com" ... -- I dont really want to waste the time fixing the code, though will if this keeps up for long... Till the next annoyance (or the fix of this one), -Wilfred L. Guerin Wilfred at Cryogen.com ... From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 3 16:22:57 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:22:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The real enemies of the poor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Jim wrote: > > In this context I meant "personality" as in demeanor and attitude, not > > scholarship and competence. > > >Opposite sides of the same coin... > > I suppose "attitude" can be ambiguous, but it's hardly relevant! Then why bring it up??? The point I"m making is that demeanor and attitude (for example) are inextricably linked. If one is insecure (attitude) then it can't help but effect other aspects such as demeanor (ie presentation to others). If one isn't confident in their skills then they can hardly be competent. And that confidence has 'personality' based characteristics. You're trying to seperate out components which are not orthogonal. > Being obnoxious, unpleasant, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with whether > or not you know enough about a subject to be worth listening to. One persons 'obnoxious' is another persons 'strained consideration'. Taking the attitude it's the 'other guys' problem is problematic itself. As to 'know enough to be worth listening to', out of the mouths of babes. Sometimes the last person who needs to be talking about a problem is somebody that 'knows all about it'. There are other shades of tinted glasses besides rose. Fundamental Rules of Science: - There are no sacred truths, all assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are useless - Whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be revised or discarded. See Feynman's concluding commentary in the Challenger report. > Thoroughly looking forward to hearing what a person has to say > and actively, intensely disliking them is not contradictory in the > slightest... Provided you have the opportunity to leave at your own behest...at some point homicide is likely to occur. > Good point. I'm an atheist, but I think Aquinas can worth reading. Marcel > (the Mystery of Being), Bataille (Inner Experience), Unamuno(Tragic Sense > of Life), Kierkegaard (Either/Or), Heidegger (Sein und Zeit) Schopenhauer > (complete works!) also come instantly to mind. I usually have no patience > for anything mystical, but these authors have been very valuable to me. > Several orders of magnitude above the usual religious mush. If you say so. I've found them to be rather confused myself. To be honest I've never read a philosopher who I agreed with. They all seem to be trying to get around basic fundamental facts they don't want to face. > >I disagree, see Newtons comments about hypothesis and playing with stones > on a beach. > > More on this in future posts. :) Newton is such a nutcase, he's fun to use in arguments. What can you say about a religious fundamentalist who pursued alchemy wholeheartedly, developed fundamental mathematical and physical descriptions while he dabbled, and then turns around and hangs people for stealing the King's money. And all the while hating people in general... I think, at least for me, he beats out Gauss as being a general sour puss. > True. But an overwhelmingly large percentage of concepts floating around > your head and populating your mental landscape (so to speak) came from > somewhere else: In a real sense, all of them did. In another sense they were always there just waiting for any sentience to recognize them, and then from another perspective they are each new and revelatory. It harkens back to the Socratic Method (I'm a fond user thereof); everybody knows everything there is to know by knowing nothing in particular outside of being able to ask questions. (Note that a big criticism of the Socratic Method is one of misunderstanding - Socrates claimed he knew nothing, but at the same time knew how to ask questions. Many readers, some quite lettered, seem to miss that there are two different things being discussed here; knowing something about the subject under discussion, and how to organize questions and thoughts). > if you're creative and original, you make new ones out of > the building blocks of the old. But they didn't just pop out of thin air. Maybe, then again there are leaps of insite which for all intents and purposes do just that. It's only after you reach the goal that you even see the path. It might be more accurate to say that they pop out of the throw of (mental) dice. A good example is Huffman Coding. Up until the problem was given to student Huffman it had remained unsolved. He spent the first part of his approach doing exactly what everyone else had done, and got nowhere. Then he decided to try it backwards and the problem resolved itself. Today we have compression algorithms out the yin-yang. The 'discovery' of the Benzen Ring came out of a dream of snakes eating their tails. Discovery is highly non-linear and non-deterministic. (My personal prescription/favorite is free association) > Singular viewpoint?? How so! Talk about different mental contexts... How many viewpoints do you hold on a given subject? And I'm not asking "How may do you understand, describe, recite"... Consider 'abortion' (and no I don't want to know how you feel), how many viewpoints do you hold (as opposed to know of, understand, ...)? Law? Etc. People are singular in their internal mental views. Opposition and conflict create confusion. See the popularity of religion for a prime example. This will get into 'free will' pretty quickly so I'm not going to pursue it deeply; each person has only so many viewpoints that they can relate to. Some of these limits are biological in nature, some social, and then some are simply the way each individual brain is wired. Have you ever met somebody who had a viewpoint you just couldn't wrap your noggin around? > And then, there's always the even less noble-minded egocentric motivation > for recommending books: "read as I read, so you may come to think as I do". > Discourse as narcissistic propaganda: probably a more common motivation > that anyone would like to admit. This speaks to my 'singular viewpoint' above as well as the 'xenophobia' that human psychology expresses to 'others'... > >It's not uncommon in our society to hear people say 'He said ...' but they > >themselves can't explain it in their own terms and context. They can > >regurgitate, they can't cogitate. Dogma and pedantry. It's why 'arguments > >from authority are useless' is such a strong tool with respect to > >deductive/synthetic analysis. > > I'm not disagreeing with that at all; I think the real sticking point here > gets back to the assumptions which led you to bring up the idea > of "singular viewpoint" and the relative meaning(s) of subjective value > judgements. I bet a lot would be made clearer to me if you could just back > up a little and go into that. I tried to expand it some above. Feel free to inquire further. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 3 18:32:47 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:32:47 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 5:48 PM -0700 8/3/01, Ray Dillinger wrote: >If the law wants to take this thing down, they will not be >attacking the strongest point -- ie, trying to trace individual >messages. > >Instead, they will attack the weakest point -- trying to drive >remailer operators out of business and thus destroy the >infrastructure you need. That is the threat model I'm concerned >about, and given that network monitoring is now automatable and >cheap, it is entirely do-able. The "cops" won't be driving remailer operators in various U.S. states "out of business." Even in these sad times where democrat expediency seems to be winning out over constitutional rights, this battle will have to be fought in the courts, probably all the way to the Supreme Court. And we know that virtually no readings of the First Amendment give local courts the say over what people can mail to each other, outside of certain types of porn and suchlike. This has been discussed many times here. Do you have some new insights, or are you just now discovering the notion that government may try to apply pressure on what people mail to each other? >>As long as there is one uncompromised node in a chain subversion doesn't >>guarantee a matchup of "from" and "to" but it improves the odds. > >So what? A move by the g8 to protect the "global infrastructure" >of the Internet, (polspeak for protecting their ability to control >what the sheep think) followed by laws passed in individual countries, >would force remops to operate solely in "rogue states", and messages >to and from them could be screened out pretty simply. Handwaving. The First Amendment will not likely be abandoned because some Marxists in France concluded that there should be limitations on what people mail to other people. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 16:39:17 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:39:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Cautionary Ontological Approach To Technology of Gabriel Marcel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > The Cautionary Ontological Approach To Technology of Gabriel Marcel > http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Tech/TechGend.htm > > ABSTRACT: I present the arguments of Gabriel Marcel which are intended to > overcome the potentially negative impact of technology on the human. Marcel > is concerned with forgetting or rejecting human nature. His perspective is > metaphysical. He is concerned with the attitude of the "mere technician" > who is so immersed in technology that the values which promote him as an > authentic person with human dignity are discredited, omitted, denied, > minimized, overshadowed, or displaced. He reviews the various losses in > ontological values which curtail the full realization of the human person > in his dignity. The impact of technology leads too often to a loss of the > sense of the mystery of being and self, authenticity and integrity, the > concrete and the existential, truth and dialogue, freedom and lover, > humanity and community, fidelity and creativity, the natural and the > transcendent, commitment and virtue, respect of the self and responsiveness > to others, and especially of the spiritual and the sacred. Thus, the task > of the philosopher is to be a watchman, un veilleur, on the alert for a > hopeful resolution of the human predicament. Then accept your humanity, that is the only resolution to the 'human predicament'. (as if there were a predicament outside of the belief that humans are somehow outside of the rest of the cosmology - philosophers are always trying to escape rather than face) -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Wilfred at Cryogen.com Fri Aug 3 15:48:43 2001 From: Wilfred at Cryogen.com (Wilfred L. Guerin) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:48:43 -0400 Subject: CodeRed Fix B Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010803184843.0154af78@ct2.nai.net> Continued... I have found no obvious work on fixes yet... Resolve: Time to fix this annoyance and be done with it. Request: Need a "Simple" set of *instructions* to "paste" a line to apache/etc server control settings so that other individuals who are running an apache/etc server may cease "attacks" on their boxes. Basicly, I request from the community a simple set of 1.2.3.4.. style instructions which will allow apache/etc admins to redirect the /stupid.ida requests to a cgi or another operation (Cgi easiest to implement) which will then both report the assault to a central server (mine) and send a sequence of infallable retaliation worms (or multiple instances of one) to the 'evil' box (simple cgi open socket/etc) and therefore target and cease the moronic box's noise. Additionally, this design would require a 'heavy' server which accepts connections via tcpip GET on port 80 (known pass-through for fwall due to problem itself) of a simple report, most probibly /aa.bb.cc.dd/ee.ff.gg.hh or similar reporting that a..d has been fixed by e..h ... log of all connection feeds would be sufficient, need box. This is problematic, as us-fed and international authorities may percieve this logging operation as authorization to attack *it* as a threat...(idiots) This bullshit shall not be tolerated, therefore I suggest and request a server be made available in a politicly and logisticly neutral realm. Havenco have any interest in testing available bw/connection capability? Anyone else? ... I shall personally produce both a basic cgi and a revision of this VERY LOW QUALITY worm code for distribution shortly, unless someone informs that such has already been completed. Note, the quality of the code is horrible, im not gonna optimize it, but it's just VERY badly written. Too bad the origin cant even code an attack correctly, more bad is the fact that SOMEONE cant even code an os/server correctly... Oh well. The motivation is to both squelch by voluntary operation (from script-capable servers) any hostile attacks on these private boxes, but also neutralize quickly this annoyance. It will be expected that the next generation of annoyances will eliminate the file-crosscheck mechanisms, and will thus require a complete system penetration to disable and isolate the server... Sorry M$hit, but your failures warrent elimination of your products by force. Your failures threaten the operation of the global data infrastructure, we eliminate your software from operation (since it has already been disabled prior this conflict)... We may tend to this as it comes... Resolve: Assuming noone has completed this task, I will tend to coding this basic fix now, and hopefully someone will come forward with a central logging system capable of post-process analysis review. Additionally, it will be requested that all isp/datasec admins allow full outgoing packet flow to this target box/array for single-direction reporting. It is probible that a large number of "firewalled" failures in corporate networks are creating additional annoyances, all requiring fix. The cgi response script, if utilized, can have the option of reporting, reporting what, etc for compatibility with security issues. As for the wh.gov attack... I could care less. If these morons and their excess of IC and technical resources can not come up with such a basic fix and remedy, why should we care about their interests? Moronics not tolerated. So... Can someone please prepare an instruction of how to set apache and other servers up to route /*n.threat requests to a cgi/script/module/etc so we can immediately release this remedy... Im sick of the level of stupidity in this world. Time to start replacing the failed components. -Wilfred L. Guerin Wilfred at Cryogen.com . From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 16:48:44 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:48:44 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Congress To Address Digital Music Message-ID: <3B6B385C.46EEEC@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/03/2053206.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From kurtbuff at lightmail.com Fri Aug 3 18:49:12 2001 From: kurtbuff at lightmail.com (Kurt Buff) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:49:12 -0700 Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond In-Reply-To: <20010804010901.15320.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <000301c11c87$a9dc6300$0601a8c0@bfgapollo1> Should be easy to spoof. Submit your efforts to Babelfish and translate it through a few languages. I'll bet that will blenderize it enough to fool most programs. Dr. Evil writes... > Not safe at all, even the unclassified programs are getting better all the > time. Check the archives for some interesting past discussion--and if you > feel like tinkering around yourself, there's a ton of free software you can > download here: > > http://www.content-analysis.de/software.html Very interesting! I wonder if it is possible to learn to write in other "linguistic fingerprints"? I'll have to look into this. Are there any such programs that are free and run under Linux? From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 16:49:52 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:49:52 -0500 Subject: OPT: Slashdot | The Death Of The Open Internet Message-ID: <3B6B38A0.25B230BD@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/03/1933221.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 3 15:53:38 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond Message-ID: Eugene Leitl wrote: >How safe are nyms from text fingerprints, and be it only word frequency >analysis? I have no idea how good the state of the art is, but I wouldn't >be risking it for anything production-quality. Not safe at all, even the unclassified programs are getting better all the time. Check the archives for some interesting past discussion--and if you feel like tinkering around yourself, there's a ton of free software you can download here: http://www.content-analysis.de/software.html Hope that helps! ~Faustine. From softwarefor595 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 19:32:15 2001 From: softwarefor595 at yahoo.com (Discount Software) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:32:15 Subject: ONLY $5.95 - 9 Marketing Programs ($359.91 Value) Message-ID: <200108040526.f745Q1J16015@rigel.cyberpass.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2210 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mob at mbox301.swipnet.se Fri Aug 3 11:10:46 2001 From: mob at mbox301.swipnet.se (Mats O. Bergstrom) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 20:10:46 +0200 Subject: New (?) tric(k) for Internet Partitioning Message-ID: <4.1.20010803200706.00953270@zebra.swip.net> This Swedish entity believes it has found the solution (patented) to the long standing problem of effortless micropayments for web content. The solution is - skip micropayments! - but let the ISP´s pay tax to the content providers, the amount calculated from the size of the ISP's customer base, regardless of which sites the particular ISP customers actually visit. So you need a World Association of Approved Content Providers (WAACP) to share the tax profits. The tric(k) seems to be a method of technically denying access to sites in the WADCP domain to users who's ISP is not paying the taxes. One big problem is that providers of Not PC Content naturally will be barred from the WADCP. Even if it won't help the MS Masses it would be a gift if their system were crackable. //mob http://www.tric.com/ From drevil at sidereal.kz Fri Aug 3 13:20:18 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 3 Aug 2001 20:20:18 -0000 Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond In-Reply-To: <200108031115.f73BFoL53934@mailserver1a> (pablo-escobar@hushmail.com) References: <200108031115.f73BFoL53934@mailserver1a> Message-ID: <20010803202018.19627.qmail@sidereal.kz> Senor Escobar, por favor, you should be a little more discrete. Mr. Ashcroft if a man who believes in God and the afterlife. You may think that you are safe from extradition where you are now, but I don't think you should risk it! From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 3 18:28:24 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:28:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > Now look at the system, the infrastructure, that you need to > send that message anonymously. It relies on identifiable > remops existing at known addresses. Known to the people sending > messages == known to the cops. Not necessarily. Consider 'small world' networks. The only people who know (necessarily) of a given remailer are the operator and his users. They share a set of keys so traffic can be source encrypted. The remailer operator shares a seperate set of infrastructure keys with some of the remailer operators that they know (as distinct from the users of that same remailer/operator). Consider that sender/receiver know each other and can use yet a third encryption layer that is independent from the other two (ie the target address does not have to be known to the initial remailer operator though it will be in the header going to the first remailer. None of the intermediate remailers need to ever decrypt that far until the TTL reaches zero/one (depending on design taste). Now couple this with Plan 9's ability to completely distribute both process and file space and 'where' a remailer might be, or even 'who' is running it become a rather sticky point since it doesn't necessarily run on the 'operators' hardware. > If the law wants to take this thing down, they will not be > attacking the strongest point -- ie, trying to trace individual > messages. But the only place they can trace messages in a 'small world' model is at source/destination link, which means they're already on top of you. If they're out fishing all they'd see is a bunch of packets sent between remailers with the body encrypted several layers deep with keys held by a variety of people. The beauty of the 'small world' model is it does away with the 'trust transivity' issue completely. All the intermediate remailers can do is drop a packet. Which will get recognized pretty quickly because of the inherent secondary (ie personal interaction) network that sits behind the remailer network itself. > Instead, they will attack the weakest point -- trying to drive > remailer operators out of business and thus destroy the > infrastructure you need. With Plan 9 that would require them to outlaw using a particular OS. Maybe in a lot of places, but not in the US. > That is the threat model I'm concerned > about, and given that network monitoring is now automatable and > cheap, it is entirely do-able. If you stick with current paradigms. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 3 11:43:03 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:43:03 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > (2) The remailers themselves are not anonymous. No, but to shut them down you have to know where they are, and to make your intent known to operators of such. The remailers could reside in a state with a weak mutual enforcibility (Eastern Block successor states, Israel, developing countries). The remailers could be physically hidden in a large facility (of course, you could always whip up a firewall filter blocking them), or be connecting via 802.11b and successors. The remailers could be packaged as part of a well-behaved worm, thus overwhelming detection and enforcement capabilites. From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 18:44:43 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 20:44:43 -0500 Subject: Small-world networks Message-ID: <3B6B538B.7038250D@ssz.com> http://www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/~vicenter/smallworld.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bear at sonic.net Fri Aug 3 20:59:41 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >But the only place they can trace messages in a 'small world' model is at >source/destination link, which means they're already on top of you. If >they're out fishing all they'd see is a bunch of packets sent between >remailers with the body encrypted several layers deep with keys held by a >variety of people. the point is, that's enough. Both endpoints on such a packet's route are participants, obviously. If they want to shut it down, and they have seen such a packet, they have two people they can shut down. Repeat ad nauseam, and the infrastructure is destroyed. They don't have to trace individual messages if they can make the software illegal. And in an agent provocateur mode, the software is illegal the minute they want it to be -- all they have to do is show a DMCA violation (which they can manufacture at will) and declare the software illegal as a "circumvention device". >With Plan 9 that would require them to outlaw using a particular OS. Maybe >in a lot of places, but not in the US. Really? I guarantee you that if a particular OS gets in the way of those with power, they can declare it a "circumvention device" the same as any other software. >> That is the threat model I'm concerned >> about, and given that network monitoring is now automatable and >> cheap, it is entirely do-able. > >If you stick with current paradigms. Bingo. That is absolutely the point. The current paradigm being the Internet as we know it. Bear From mybiz at popmail.com Fri Aug 3 21:18:39 2001 From: mybiz at popmail.com (biz) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:18:39 Subject: Hi Message-ID: <200108040321.UAA30690@ecotone.toad.com> Dear Friends & Future Millionaire: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV : ''Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 US Dollars expense one time'' THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET! ================================================= BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! Before you say ''Bull'', please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost''. DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in''. Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is another testimonial: ''This program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and voila' - 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything'' More testimonials later but first, ****PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE**** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: ****Order all 5 reports shown on the list below. ****For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. ****When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5 = $25.00. ****Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. ****IMPORTANT __ DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will loose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1....After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT #5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2....Move the name & address in REPORT #4 down TO REPORT #5. 3....Move the name & address in REPORT #3 down TO REPORT #4. 4....Move the name & address in REPORT #2 down TO REPORT #3. 5....Move the name & address in REPORT #1 down TO REPORT #2 6....Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT #1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! ================================================= ****Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. ****To assist you with marketing your business on the Internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD #1 : BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ================================================= Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.2% . Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1.Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That's = 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report #5. THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH = $500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000 ......... Grand Total = $555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone, or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, any people will do just that, and more! METHOD #2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ================================================= Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with method #1 and add METHOD #2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it . Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. _________________AVAILABLE REPORTS__________________ ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (US CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. _________________________________________________________ PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : ================================================= REPORT #1: "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net" Order Report #1 from: George Clark 3714 Lander Ln. Colorado Springs CO. 80909 USA _______________________________________________________ REPORT #2: "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net" Order Report #2 from: Anton Miller P.O.Box 85 Basseterre St.Kitts, West Indies. Caribbean _______________________________________________________ REPORT #3: "Secret to Multilevel Marketing on the Net" Order Report #3 from : Dale Avon RR1, Hubbards Nova Scotia, BOJ 1TO Canada _______________________________________________________ REPORT #4:"How to Become a Millionaire Utilizing MLM & the Net" Order Report #4 from Craig Rogers 3740 N. Romero Rd. C 166 Tucson, AZ 85705 U.S.A. ______________________________________________________ REPORT #5: "How to Send Out One Million e-mails for Free" Order Report #5 from: Discover Media P.O.Box 182 Melbourne,Fl. 32902 U.S.A. ______________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: ***If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. ***After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT #2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. ***Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you , and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER : Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a Different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business!!! ______________________________________________________ FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: "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 weeks and months than you have ever imagined. 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 report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........#5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails and your name will be on everyone 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! ****************MORE TESTIMONIALS***************** 'My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major US Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail''. I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I ''knew'' it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so'' on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received total $ 147,200.00 ......... all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her ''hobby''. Mitchell Wolf, MD , Chicago, Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ''Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back''. ''I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big''. Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ''I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.........11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks''. Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ''It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20, 560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanx to Internet''. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! ================================================== If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, DC /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ONE TIME MAILING, NO NEED TO REMOVE /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This message is sent in compliance of the proposed bill SECTION 301. per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618. Further transmission to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to: Sophie530 at email.com with the word Remove in the subject line. This message is not intended for residents in the State of Washington, screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. ****************************************************** “This letter constitutes no guarantees stated or implied. In th event that it is determined that this letter constitutes a guarantee, it is now void. Any testimonials or amounts of earnings listed in this letter may be factual or fictitous.” ****************************************************** From iang at abraham.cs.berkeley.edu Fri Aug 3 18:30:02 2001 From: iang at abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 21:30:02 -0400 Subject: (file sharing) morpheus rules! References: <20010803113301.A2527@economists.cryptohill.net> <3B6A89DA.30274.A4DCA1@localhost> Message-ID: In article <3B6A89DA.30274.A4DCA1 at localhost>, wrote: >is it adware/spyware? Yes. Adware. Its cousin KaZaA (uses the same network) is spyware. [Well, we don't know that for sure. But it installs apparently ~5 different "phone home and get data" apps on your system.] > Is the source available? No. > If not, >do they at least make the communication protocol open >so you could build your own client if you wanted to? No. But of course, that's never stopped us before... - Ian From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 3 19:26:30 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The real enemies of the poor Message-ID: > On Thu, 3 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Jim wrote: > > In this context I meant "personality" as in demeanor and attitude, not > > scholarship and competence. > >Opposite sides of the same coin... > I suppose "attitude" can be ambiguous, but it's hardly relevant! >Then why bring it up??? "it" being "opposite sides of the same coin". >The point I'm making is that demeanor and attitude (for example) are >inextricably linked. Sure, but for me both are almost entirely separable from my personal evaluation of someone's scholarship and competence. >If one is insecure (attitude) then it can't help but >effect other aspects such as demeanor (ie presentation to others). If one >isn't confident in their skills then they can hardly be competent. And >that confidence has 'personality' based characteristics. Okay, I'll apply this to my example of dear old Doctor X, a man I simultaneously respect and can't stand. You can infer certain aspects of his attitude towards his colleagues from the mocking and contemptuous way he addresses them in meetings--which he never fails to hijack with an endless barrage of commentary, transforming any occasion into a platform for self-aggrandizement. If you've ever seen a nature special and observed the alpha chimp's posturing before the younger males who inadvertently pose a challenge by attracting the attention of one of the females, you'll understand this dynamic quite well. The unwritten rule is that no one is "allowed" express a theory before the group without getting it ripped apart by Dr. Alphachimp, he just can't seem to stand it. His demeanor--presentation to others--alternates between what can best be described as "genteel patronizing condescension" and "being a full-bore asshole". None of this has the slightest bearing on the fact that he's one of the most brilliant, knowledgeable and incisive people I've ever met: his social skills deficit is just an unfortunate by-product. Is he a "nice person"? No. Would I ever want to spend time with him in a social setting? Hell no. Do I enjoy arguing with him? Definitely. Would I want him to review my research before I published it? You bet your life I would! >You're trying to seperate out components which are not orthogonal. Why do you think concepts need to be orthagonal to be useful? > Being obnoxious, unpleasant, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with > whether or not you know enough about a subject to be worth listening to. >>One persons 'obnoxious' is another persons 'strained consideration'. >>Taking the attitude it's the 'other guys' problem is problematic itself. No, I realize that I'm probably a little more sensitized to (and upset by) the way Dr. Alphachimp treats the people around him because I have a tendency to the same sort of failings myself. If I had an easygoing sort of temper, the things that irk me most about him would probably sail over my head unnoticed. You sure can learn a lot about yourself by stepping back and noticing how you react when interacting with other people... >As to 'know enough to be worth listening to', out of the mouths of babes. >Sometimes the last person who needs to be talking about a problem is >somebody that 'knows all about it'. There are other shades of tinted >glasses besides rose. It's important not to shut yourself off from new ideas, but you have to have a way to decide at what point you're wasting your effort. >Fundamental Rules of Science: >- There are no sacred truths, all assumptions must be critically examined. > Arguments from authority are useless >- Whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be revised or discarded. >See Feynman's concluding commentary in the Challenger report. No quarrel here. > Thoroughly looking forward to hearing what a person has to say > and actively, intensely disliking them is not contradictory in the > slightest... >>Provided you have the opportunity to leave at your own behest...at some >>point homicide is likely to occur. Oh not really, it's fine as long as at least one person is able to maintain the veneer of civility. As long as Dr. Alphachimp never figures out what I really think of him, it'll be an awesome opportunity to keep learning from him. I see more of the "genteel patronizing condescension" side anyway, which helps a lot. Or at least that's the way it feels, ha. > Good point. I'm an atheist, but I think Aquinas can worth reading. Marcel > (the Mystery of Being), Bataille (Inner Experience), Unamuno(Tragic Sense > of Life), Kierkegaard (Either/Or), Heidegger (Sein und Zeit) Schopenhauer > (complete works!) also come instantly to mind. I usually have no patience > for anything mystical, but these authors have been very valuable to me. > Several orders of magnitude above the usual religious mush. >>If you say so. I've found them to be rather confused myself. Not orthagonal enough..? >To be honest I've never read a philosopher who I agreed with. I can't say I agree with anyone in sum either; it's what you can take away from it with you that counts. >They all seem to be trying to get around basic fundamental facts they >don't want to face. Oh yeah? Schopenhauer is about as honest and real as they come. > >I disagree, see Newtons comments about hypothesis and playing with stones > on a beach. > More on this in future posts. >:) Newton is such a nutcase, he's fun to use in arguments. What can you >say about a religious fundamentalist who pursued alchemy wholeheartedly, >developed fundamental mathematical and physical descriptions while he >dabbled, and then turns around and hangs people for stealing the King's >money. And all the while hating people in general... >I think, at least for me, he beats out Gauss as being a general sour puss. But that's part of what makes him so interesting! :) > True. But an overwhelmingly large percentage of concepts floating around > your head and populating your mental landscape (so to speak) came from > somewhere else: >In a real sense, all of them did. In another sense they were always there >just waiting for any sentience to recognize them, That's a pretty heavy dose of Platonism, no? ...whole lotta reification goin' on... > and then from another >perspective they are each new and revelatory. It harkens back to the >Socratic Method (I'm a fond user thereof); everybody knows everything >there is to know by knowing nothing in particular outside of being able to >ask questions. (Note that a big criticism of the Socratic Method is one of >misunderstanding - Socrates claimed he knew nothing, but at the same time >knew how to ask questions. Many readers, some quite lettered, seem to miss that there are two different things being discussed here; knowing something about the subject under discussion, and how to organize questions and thoughts). Well it's certainly worth keeping in mind. > if you're creative and original, you make new ones out of > the building blocks of the old. But they didn't just pop out of thin air. >Maybe, then again there are leaps of insite which for all intents and >purposes do just that. It's only after you reach the goal that you even >see the path. It might be more accurate to say that they pop out of the >throw of (mental) dice. A good example is Huffman Coding. Up until the >problem was given to student Huffman it had remained unsolved. He spent >the first part of his approach doing exactly what everyone else had done, >and got nowhere. Then he decided to try it backwards and the problem >resolved itself. Today we have compression algorithms out the yin-yang. >The 'discovery' of the Benzen Ring came out of a dream of snakes eating >their tails. >Discovery is highly non-linear and non-deterministic. (My personal >prescription/favorite is free association) Just because an event is nonlinear and non-determined doesn't mean it negated the laws of causality. The building blocks are much smaller and less obvious, but they're still present in some form, even when they're not readily ascertainable. No one ever invented anything unless the conditions preceeding it were in place. Is there a great degree of freedom in discovery? Of course, but you have to have some mental dice to throw before you can throw them! > Singular viewpoint?? How so! Talk about different mental contexts... >How many viewpoints do you hold on a given subject? And I'm not asking >"How may do you understand, describe, recite"... >Consider 'abortion' (and no I don't want to know how you feel), how many >viewpoints do you hold (as opposed to know of, understand, ...)? Law? Etc. >People are singular in their internal mental views. Opposition and >conflict create confusion. See the popularity of religion for a prime >example. That issue is fairly clear-cut for me. But if you were to ask me about something I'm more ambivalent about--say, "globalization"--it's easy to imagine having simultaneous viewpoints that are seemingly contradictory on a superficial level. >This will get into 'free will' pretty quickly so I'm not going to pursue >it deeply; each person has only so many viewpoints that they can relate >to. Some of these limits are biological in nature, some social, and then >some are simply the way each individual brain is wired. Maybe some people are just wired or socially conditioned to relate to more viewpoints. "Do I contradict myself? Very well then...I contradict myself." >Have you ever met somebody who had a viewpoint you just couldn't wrap your >noggin around? No, but then there's the issue of whether you really can, or just think you can. If you're sensitive enough to be able to pick up on how and why someone formed a certain view, it helps. Great page on empathy, analogy and cognitive processes: http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html ~Faustine. From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 22:29:50 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:29:50 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men Message-ID: Declan McCullagh wrote: > Talking about alleged victimless > crimes allegedly committed by > list members is irresponsible.* > The reason it is arguably > irresponsible is that you are > endangering someone else's safety. > Big difference. I don't follow your logic. (At least you admit my alleged irresponsibility is arguable.) Please tell me how you think referencing an alleged crime many years in the past somehow endangers anyone's safety today. I don't see. I've committed felonies, you've committed felonies, we've all committed felonies, over the years. So what? What difference can mentioning it make? Where is the danger to Tim's safety? Who represents that danger and how are my actions the proximate cause of such alleged danger? You're a smart and reasonable guy, Declan, and you may be right. I don't think so, but I'm open to your argument. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 3 13:35:21 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:35:21 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond In-Reply-To: <20010803202018.19627.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: How safe are nyms from text fingerprints, and be it only word frequency analysis? I have no idea how good the state of the art is, but I wouldn't be risking it for anything production-quality. On 3 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > Senor Escobar, por favor, you should be a little more discrete. > Mr. Ashcroft if a man who believes in God and the afterlife. You may > think that you are safe from extradition where you are now, but I > don't think you should risk it! > -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From petro at bounty.org Fri Aug 3 22:37:47 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:37:47 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net> References: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net> Message-ID: > Although really, the most serious question everyone should be >asking is why the court wants "all" copies. (1) To make sure that these documents don't get leaked to the press and "spoil" the jury pool. (2) To make sure that the information in those documents *never* gets public. From drevil at sidereal.kz Fri Aug 3 15:39:15 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 3 Aug 2001 22:39:15 -0000 Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond In-Reply-To: (message from Eugene Leitl on Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:35:21 +0200 (MET DST)) References: Message-ID: <20010803223915.31437.qmail@sidereal.kz> > How safe are nyms from text fingerprints, and be it only word frequency > analysis? I have no idea how good the state of the art is, but I wouldn't > be risking it for anything production-quality. I'm not sure, but I only use this for silly things, so I don't really care. Senor Escobar probably has more serious security concerns than I do. From petro at bounty.org Fri Aug 3 22:41:38 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:41:38 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On >> Behalf Of Harmon Seaver >> As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all >> your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it. > >Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point >you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the >opposite of what you claim above. (I didn't see a legal background on your >resume either but perhaps you have any cites that I don't know about?) I think Seaver meant that if if you don't have the stuff, you don't have the stuff and all the fines and jail time in the world won't produce the stuff, especially if it was never there to begin with. >> Although really, the most serious question everyone should be >> asking is why the court wants "all" copies. > >Asked and answered. Was it? I missed it in the other discussions. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 20:43:12 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:43:12 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010803135314.008abd50@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: > At 09:50 AM 8/3/01 -0700, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > > > >Lots of people, among them various companies I worked for, have > been doing > equivalent things with shredders, selective backup, and so on and > so forth, > routinely destroying records, in part because excessive record keeping > could become a disaster in any court case. > > > >Everyone is doing it, no one has been charged. > > > > After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter > official policy to destroy email after N days. As if Ollie et al. wasn't > enough. EXACTLY. *SIGH* Neither Uni nor I suggested that routine document destruction is inappropriate in the ordinary course of business. Again, the flipside of these cases is that court's recognized the legitimate aims (and self-protective nature) of destruction when done as part of a consistent, good faith practice. Read Lewy. ~Aimee From petro at bounty.org Fri Aug 3 22:50:05 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:50:05 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:09 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote: >value. (Revisit my IANAL discussion in posts a few days ago in which I >wonder aloud why these posters are taken seriously while the "I am not a >doctor, but" posters are not). Don't know where you've been reading the last 10 years, but it's the case all over the Internet that people give the most egregious medical advise (in one case a poster suggested someone break an "addiction" to ephedrine (taken as a diet aid/upper) with some ridiculous chinese herb that, you guessed it, contained ephedrine and caffine. (IIRC it was guarna). Similar nonsense abounds. At least most of the legal advice here will get you laughed at in court, not dead. From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 23:11:32 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:11:32 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aimee wrote: > Sandy, I so appreciate your > attempts to span the gap, here, > but I feel like I am watching > you hurt yourself. Repeatedly. > To no end. This be the night of the dull Sandy. I can see you are apparently heartfelt in your post, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you be more specific? S a n d y From petro at bounty.org Fri Aug 3 23:12:50 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:12:50 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:20 AM -0700 8/3/01, Lucky Green wrote: >Ray wrote: > >> [...] as one who >> is not of the Priveleged Caste in terms of access to legal information, >> (ie, willing to pay thousands of bucks to Westlaw or whoever each >> year) I am grateful to him for passing it on. > >There are Cypherpunks without a Westlaw or LEXIS login? The mind boggles... Many of us cannot write it off on our taxes as a business expense, and at least one of us isn't really sure he want's to give those thieving bastards any of his money. (Which if I do decide to go to law school, I guess I'll have to) From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 3 23:22:21 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:22:21 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Petro wrote: > At 12:20 AM -0700 8/3/01, Lucky > Green wrote: > >... > >There are Cypherpunks without a > >Westlaw or LEXIS login? The mind > >boggles... > > Many of us cannot write it off on > our taxes as a business expense, > and at least one of us isn't > really sure he want's to give > those thieving bastards any of > his money. Uh, I don't think Lucky said anything about PAYING. ;'D S a n d y From petro at bounty.org Fri Aug 3 23:31:11 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:31:11 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:07 AM -0700 8/3/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >James A. Donald wrote: > >> He has presented no such >> punishment, therefore no such >> case exists. >> >> Therefore remailer operators >> and the rest of us can in perfect >> comfort fail to keep logs, we can >> circulate thought crimes into >> irrecoverable systems, and so on >> and so forth. > >Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all. The That would be a first. From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 21:35:19 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:35:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > > >But the only place they can trace messages in a 'small world' model is at > >source/destination link, which means they're already on top of you. If > >they're out fishing all they'd see is a bunch of packets sent between > >remailers with the body encrypted several layers deep with keys held by a > >variety of people. > > the point is, that's enough. No, it's not. > Both endpoints on such a packet's route are participants, obviously. Given. So are all the remailers in between. > If they want to shut it down, and they have seen such a packet, they have > two people they can shut down. No they don't. They have at most the sender or the receiver (never both unless they've already cracked both of them in which case this entire exercise is moot). How do you shut a program down that is running independently in a distributed process space? A process space that is distributed in such a way that the hardware that executes a particular image of the remailer for one message is NOT the same hardware that would be used for the next message. In fact neither the owner of the process or the owner of the individual boxes necessarily have a say in the selection process. The only way to take that down is take 'em all down at once. Not possible. Can the US government shut the entire Internet down? No. Can they shut down just the US based infra-structure in toto? No. > Repeat ad nauseam, and the infrastructure is destroyed. Not hardly. You really, really should read more 9P documentation. http://plan9.bell-labs.com > They don't have to trace individual messages if they can make the software > illegal. Fortunately encryption software enjoys enough of a 1st amendment shield that isn't going to happen. A moot point. > And in an agent provocateur mode, the software is illegal the > minute they want it to be -- all they have to do is show a > DMCA violation (which they can manufacture at will) and declare > the software illegal as a "circumvention device". Not hardly. Sending an encrypted message to a friend across the country is not a 'circumvention device' because we aren't doing anything related to copyrighted material. An anonymous remailer is not a 'circumvention device' within the context of DMCA. Hell, if they could manufacture it at will they already would have. > >With Plan 9 that would require them to outlaw using a particular OS. Maybe > >in a lot of places, but not in the US. > > Really? I guarantee you that if a particular OS gets in the way > of those with power, they can declare it a "circumvention device" > the same as any other software. Not hardly. But I'll gladly look at a more fleshed out scenario when you provide it... > Bingo. That is absolutely the point. The current paradigm being > the Internet as we know it. Which Plan 9 and 'small world' networks ain't. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 3 21:47:49 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:47:49 -0500 Subject: Small world networks: abstract cond-mat/0002076 Message-ID: <3B6B7E75.1864EDDA@ssz.com> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0002076 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From petro at bounty.org Fri Aug 3 23:48:37 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:48:37 -0700 Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond In-Reply-To: <20010804010901.15320.qmail@sidereal.kz> References: <20010804010901.15320.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: At 1:09 AM +0000 8/4/01, Dr. Evil wrote: >> Not safe at all, even the unclassified programs are getting better all the >> time. Check the archives for some interesting past discussion--and if you >> feel like tinkering around yourself, there's a ton of free software you can >> download here: >> >> http://www.content-analysis.de/software.html > >Very interesting! I wonder if it is possible to learn to write in >other "linguistic fingerprints"? More interesting by far would be to write software that sanitized the text. Learning to write with a *different* fingerprint should be easy. Remebering which "style" goes with which nym would be tougher, but not undoable. Having a software filter would be optimal. Sort of an advanced version of the Swedish Chef or Jive filters. Proably already done and discussed during a period when I was taking a break from this list. > I'll have to look into this. Are >there any such programs that are free and run under Linux? From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 21:50:17 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:50:17 -0500 Subject: Small world networks: abstract cond-mat/0001118 Message-ID: <3B6B7F09.FC6A452B@ssz.com> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0001118 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jschultz at coin.org Fri Aug 3 22:11:51 2001 From: jschultz at coin.org (John Schultz) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:11:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CodeRed Fix In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20010803180326.0154af78@ct2.nai.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Wilfred L. Guerin wrote: > With eeye and others releaseing codeRed src almost a month ago, has anyone > bothered to modify the worm and bother distributing (by force) the file > checked by the current worm which will suppress its operation? Not that I am aware of. > This is such an obvious fix, however noone seems to have yet had a clue to > do it? This is due to the possible illegality. Your "vaccine" would certainly get investigated by any clued-in admin who noticed it. You would possibly get attention from some LEAs, regardless of your intentions. > If that many can be infected by using a psuedo-random sequence, this could > be easily traced or more effectively a far more effective sequencing > pattern for the disbersal could be utilized... A revised version of Code Red (called Code Red v2 or CRv2) was released shortly after eEye discovered the original Code Red. CRv2 had a much better PRNG than the original Code Red worm, and did not attack the same sequence of hosts. > Moreso, if noone is competant to have yet done this, can anyone provide an > EXTREMELY stable high-load capacity box which can accept reporting of > infected hosts? -- This would be highly useful in the target analysis of > the worm's progress... The incidents at securityfocus.com list is probably tracking Code Red infections and coordinating some soft of response to affected sites. > Granted, this is a distributed infiltration mechanism, however, I somehow > doubt the stateside feds and other morons would be contradicting of ceasing > a distributed attack, even if we do not bother to stop the wh.gov > targeting... Ask Max Vision of whitehats.com what happened to him when he created a program to patch vulnerable Internet software (bind, I think it was). Oh wait, he's in prison at the moment. This probably had something to do with him planting a backdoor along with the fix, but I wouldn't risk it. John Schultz jschultz at coin.org From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 22:18:53 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:18:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: <20010804010455.B30609@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > This is true, but the reason is that when you post somethin to > cypherpunks, you're essentially giving an implied license to > redistribute (and archive, etc). Same with Usenet. Bullshit. http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html In particular #3. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 3 22:20:01 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:20:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: <20010804010725.C30609@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > 1. Don't send attachments to cypherpunks > > 2. See below for the reason why > > 3. Reread rules 1 and 2 Actually there is no such policy on the CDR. Declan doesn't even run a member node so his opinions of what should happen with other peoples property is irrelevant. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From iang at abraham.cs.berkeley.edu Fri Aug 3 17:22:51 2001 From: iang at abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) Date: 4 Aug 2001 00:22:51 GMT Subject: (file sharing) morpheus rules! References: <20010803113301.A2527@economists.cryptohill.net> <3B6A89DA.30274.A4DCA1@localhost> Message-ID: <9kff8r$l5b$1@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu> In article <3B6A89DA.30274.A4DCA1 at localhost>, wrote: >is it adware/spyware? Yes. Adware. Its cousin KaZaA (uses the same network) is spyware. [Well, we don't know that for sure. But it installs apparently ~5 different "phone home and get data" apps on your system.] > Is the source available? No. > If not, >do they at least make the communication protocol open >so you could build your own client if you wanted to? No. But of course, that's never stopped us before... - Ian From Wilfred at Cryogen.com Fri Aug 3 21:24:48 2001 From: Wilfred at Cryogen.com (Wilfred L. Guerin) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 00:24:48 -0400 Subject: CodeRed Fix Prepared (20 mins) Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010804002448.009a3190@ct2.nai.net> Follow-up.. [00.00 EST, 04.08.2001; 11.35 EST 03.08.2001 to now (release).] I just spent 20-30 mins doing a basic tweak of the CodeRed worm. I need now a known faulty IIS server (or list thereof) preferably with admin to track the success of the process. The tweaked code basicly fixes a couple flow sequences, sends a packet to a loggerbox, and then utilizes the worm's capabilities for distribution and neutralisation... I would like to test this (mostly to ensure box isnt eliminated if it might still have the capacity to do something else) on a known target quickly, so if anyone has a suitable simulation target, please contact me directly. Obviously, we need to confirm the successful operation, and ensure it does indeed stall the codeRed process... If anything, this will merely head off any not-yet-bothered servers, but will at least lock out the old codeRed worm from further propogation. I may be inclined to construct a more advanced derivative (As this code is SEVERELY horrible, CR could be done successfully in half the weight) which would allow shutdown of targets within the faulty M$ servers and other various hostiles, though not a high priority in any regard. Is there value/worth for this? ... Also, would like to allow for accurate logging, so need a target box which can accept connections for monitoring, caida/etc as others have suggested would be ideal, though contact is required with/from them or another party. I have some basic scripts which can be used to clean out any originating server, basicly 5 line pump scripts for perl to feed the cleaner worm back to the noisy server. This is a quick fix, but will at least quiet down the adverse and excess traffic and noise... It is self-limiting, and will not propogate from previously-cleaned boxes. So, if we can have a couple targets and ensure it works, we can then help out this hastle effectively... I wouldnt mind a controlled simulation with mutual intent of both cleaning as well as simulation/analysis in the real world... We need this. Till someone's response with a target/etc :) -Wilfred Wilfred at Cryogen.com From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 21:42:27 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 00:42:27 -0400 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: References: <3B67C975.18492.417600@localhost> <3B67C975.18492.417600@localhost> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010804003530.02045be0@mail.well.com> At 09:37 AM 8/1/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Exactly so. This list, like so many other lists, is gradually moving >toward "public politics" and "the law" as the focus of many members. More public policy than "public politics," but the general point is true. I'm not sure what the reason is. Perhaps a combination of more stuff happening by the Feds than, say, eight years ago. It's true we had SJG and CDA (well, starting in 1994-1995) and crypto restrictions and CALEA (starting in 1994) and Clipper. But that's a pretty short list compared to what DC is involved with today. Also many of the broader cypherpunkly themes have been well thought out and well-discussed. Some people have gone on to create companies around these ideas; most of those have failed, or at least have not been wildly profitable successes. Other cypherpunkly projects, like Freenet, have their own lists and networks of programmers, who may not even read cypherpunks. Some things have remained constant for the past four years or so: The number of remailers, to a first approximation, and the number of years before digital cash happens. :) >We risk becoming just a pale--a very, very pale!--imitation of the >Cyberia-L list. Nah. Cyberia's gone downhill. Folks there have fled to private law lists too (I'm on one). -Declan From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 21:53:45 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:53:45 -0400 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: ; from sandfort@mindspring.com on Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 11:05:41AM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010804005345.A30344@cluebot.com> It may well be irresponsible for Tim to talk about his probable responses to a situation when unidentified black ninjas invade his home. The reason it is arguably irresponsible is that Tim is endangering his safety. But he knows that. Talking about alleged victimless crimes allegedly committed by list members is irresponsible.* The reason it is arguably irresponsible is that you are endangering someone else's safety. Big difference. -Declan * = As differentiated from victumful crimes. For instance, if someone steals Sandy's car or Tim's motorcycle from a cypherpunks meeting, nobody would raise eyebrows if they call the cops. On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 11:05:41AM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Tim May wrote: > > > It is utterly irresponsible for > > you to discuss this on a list > > frequented by narcs and informants > > and even prosecutors. > > No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on this > list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade your home. If > they end up shooting you (and I think their is a significant likelihood that > they will), it will be in large part because of your macho siege mentality. > > > Unbelievable behavior, narcing out > > a fellow list member. Sandy should > > be ashamed. > > I "narced out" your behavior of several years ago. If you are stupid enough > to still be carrying a knife illegally (when there are plenty of legal > options), then there is no helping you. On your head be it. > > > The prosecutors who read this list > > must be chortling. > > More likely they are saying, "Ah fuck, I wish we'd known that before > Sandfort wised Tim up. Now we'll just have to go with plan B and shoot him > when we raid his house with a trumped up search warrant." > > And like Vinnie told you, the ones they send after you will be a LOT better > than he is. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 23:03:45 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:03:45 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sandy, I so appreciate your attempts to span the gap, here, but I feel like I am watching you hurt yourself. Repeatedly. To no end. ~Aimee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of Sandy Sandfort > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 12:07 PM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: RE: Spoliation cites > > > James A. Donald wrote: > > > He has presented no such > > punishment, therefore no such > > case exists. > > > > Therefore remailer operators > > and the rest of us can in perfect > > comfort fail to keep logs, we can > > circulate thought crimes into > > irrecoverable systems, and so on > > and so forth. > > Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post > at all. The > important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they > may show a > TREND in the law. The common law evolves over time. To say that no > precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT exists means that you can operate "in perfect > comfort" is asinine. The question is, what will a court say NEXT? > > > S a n d y From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 23:03:59 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:03:59 -0500 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim..... > >> Banal, actually. > > > >Maybe to you, Tim, but I was looking at it from a different perspective. > > > >First, in regard to dissident group bulletproofing, so as to provide the > >greatest First Amendment associational protections. (I suspect > some of you > >get your legal advice from the government.) And, also in regard > to dissident > >group surveillance. This list has been affected by recent events, and > >"subjectively chilled." While it is not the first time for such > things, the > >effects on group dynamics are of interest to me. > > You need to learn about the severe limitations of "security through > obscurity." I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue "objective chill" in here, that's a legal concept....but clearly, you aren't interested. > (The only reason we have sometimes considered having an encrypted > list is to a) weed out those unwilling to figure out how to do PGP, > b) make PGP use more widespread. The notion of keeping the contents > "secret" was not even debated seriously.) Well, that figures. > Sociobabble handwaving about "effects on group dynamics" doesn't > change this. So you think that just throwing in some words about > "value propositions" and "conversational economics" is the way to put > forward a real idea or argument? Looks like bullshitting to me. Like > the output of an Internet rant generator. YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator? > >Second, I would like to see the conversational economic theories > at work in > >a protected list. > > Sociobabble. First, an encrypted or stegoized list would not be > protected. See above. Second, it has nothing to do with > "conversational economic theories" (?). Conversational economics and privacy -- what I should have said. Posed as an explanation for some surveillance law. See An Economic Theory Of Privacy, Richard A. Posner. The same Judge Posner of Torres case fame. "There is no right to be left alone while assembling bombs in safe houses." United States v. Torres, 751 F.2d 875 (7th Cir.1984). Not a theory I subscribe to. > >Third, many of your concepts were harbingers of a shift where people take > >costly evasive maneuvers to protect what is legal, and traditionally > >highly-valued speech and association (being critical of the government). > >Your ideas are being implemented, or examined, often by ordinary > people with > >less spectacular motives and aims. So, the more "trodden," "banal," > >.....[insert Tim Mayism here]...something is to you, the more > interesting it > >is to me. > > You are blithering. I don't think you have the foggiest idea what is > being talked about. And instead of learning, you just blither. ...... > You keep apologizing. Is this some kind of chick thang? .... > do some very _basic_ reading. Right back atcha. > Once you grok what remailer networks are all about, you'll (maybe) > have an epiphany that all the yammer about IP addresses defeating > remailers is nonsense. And once you grok the idea of how sending > encrypted mail out to list of N people, where N is 100 or more, and > where subscription is lightly controlled, is pointless. (In fact, > cell sizes as small as 3 are infiltrated, but this is an issue I > don't have the desire to get into here.) I didn't say IP addys were nonsense, Tim. I overhead some silly biometric conversation and mentioned it because Ray mentioned IPs. > Stop fucking apologizing you stupid twit. Certainly. > > > >Perhaps I can contribute in other areas, Tim. I will try to do better. I > >mean that sincerely. > > Stop apologizing. Instead of blithering about "conversational > economics" and "value propositions" and "I'm sorry," spend ONE > FUCKING HOUR reading the most basic of all papers, a paper now 20 > years old. I gave you the subject, year, and author. (Hint: It was > Webbed as of a few months ago. I just checked: it still is. But > rather than even expect you to find it, here it is: > http://world.std.com/~franl/crypto/chaum-acm-1981.html) Why, thank you, Tim. > > If this paper uses terminology too distant from later Cypherpunks > technology, read any of the 1992-93 articles folks like Eric Hughes, > Hal Finney, and myself wrote. Or read my Cyphernomicon entries on how > remailers work. > > (I fully expect you to announce that you _do_ understand how they > work. But clearly you don't, else you wouldn't have commented that > biometric IP linking will be a problem. Dammit, I didn't say that. I said: "I've seen predictions that by 2005-7, your IP will be biometrically associated. (I have nothing to back to that up, but the source was credible.)" It was a mere reference to Bear mentioning IPs and third-party intermediaries... (Hence, the cites.) I didn't say anything about remailers. > A _real_ legal issue, one we > have discussed many times, is the constitutionality of a law > requiring accountability for all forwarded messages. A law requiring > all chunks of text to be traceable to a true name violates the usual > 1st A protections, supported by the Supremes when they have struck > down laws requiring handbills to have true names attached. Not to > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on > U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as > an exercise for you.) Indeed, what I was trying to get at might have been "somewhat related." I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in the United States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it. > >You are a the leader of a pack of prize jackasses that pick on > cripples in > >here. *REAL* SUBVERSIVES have a gentlemanly demeanor (at least > the decency > >of pretense). > > Are you calling yourself a cripple? Not even I have called you a cripple. ..... > You've shown no willingness to learn the most basic of things. You > can't add legal advice that is useful if you don't even understand > the most basic of things we talk about. In fact, your legal advice is > almost certainly misleading if you don't even understand how nested > remailers work, and why IP addresses aren't included in remailed > messages, and why the robustness and obfuscation of a network of N > remailers each pooling-and-remailing M messages goes _roughly_ as > N^M. Thus, a nested hop through 10 remailers around the world, each > pooling 10 incoming messages (of the same size after padding), would > give an attacker _roughly_ 10 billion paths to follow. Okay, well, I did learn something there. > I keep saying "roughly" because there are numerous things that cut > this down, not the least of which is that there aren't likely to be > even tens of thousands of messages per day flowing through the > world's remailers until there are a lot more of them, etc. And so an > attacker cannot see a diffusivity of 10^10. But he also certainly > cannot easily say which exiting message maps to which entering > message. And there are the methods we so often have discussed: route > messages through some remailers multiple times, send dummy messages > at intervals, use your own machine as a remailer, and so on. It > doesn't take long to see that the diffusivity (untraceability) can be > very large very quickly and cheaply. And, no, no biometric or IP > information is attached! Bear just mentioned IP and I just threw out the biometric comment. I was curious, since it did not make sense to me. I made no mention of remailers. > If you have not grokked the idea of anonymous remailers, how can you > comment on legal issues facing them? *sigh* I didn't. Spoliation is a general concept. My comments were general in nature. I don't think I used the word "remailer." You frequently rant off into legal areas when you haven't briefed the law, Tim. > As for your "torching" your work because I hurt your feelings, show > some fucking backbone. If you are right, you don't need the moral > support of others. Now you are extrapolating. You didn't 'hurt my feelings' - you are just gigging me. Furthermore, I wasn't looking for "moral support." And, certainly not in here. :-) ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 3 23:04:19 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:04:19 -0500 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tim May: > Just so. And some of the recent "remailers can't work" critics > (Dillinger, Farr) are breathtakingly ignorant of what was common > knowledge in 1992. Worse, they haven't heeded recommendations that > they get themselves up to speed. I didn't say that. I think Ray really did, either. > There is no sign that even the technologies described above > (wireless, throwaways, worm-based, surreptitious, etc.) are needed to > achieve excellent untraceability. A distributed set of remailers in N > different jurisdictions is quite robust against prosecutorial fishing > expeditions, though not as robust as we want against attacks by much > more capable adversaries. > > Ways to increase robustness have been discussed many times. (Increase > N, increase pool sizes at each stage, adopt constant-bandwidth > approaches like Pipenet, throw in wireless and "rooms full of > remailers" approaches, even adopt DC-Net methods as cores for > sub-nets.) > > Dillinger and Farr have described only sophomoric attacks. Even the > remailers of 1995-6 defeated the Scientologists. > > Crap about IP addresses being traceable is just obfuscation to cover > basic ignorance of how remailer networks work. > > > --Tim May > > > > -- > Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California > Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon > Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go > Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:04:55 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:04:55 -0400 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: ; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 09:31:05AM -0700 References: <20010731232456.A26735@neutraldomain.org> <3B67E138.2325F015@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20010804010455.B30609@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 09:31:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > I don't see anyone clamoring that Tim's copyrights are being violated > when his articles are bounced around the Net in the same way I see > _some_ people yammering that Declan's and "Wired Online's" copyrights > are being violated when _his_ articles are being bounced around. The > issue is not that some outlets charge money, as most clearly don't. This is true, but the reason is that when you post somethin to cypherpunks, you're essentially giving an implied license to redistribute (and archive, etc). Same with Usenet. When I write something for Wired.com, we don't offer that implied license. > Nothing against Declan or "Wired Online," of course. Just noting that > once again there seems to be a special status for Official Reporters, > Official Publishers, Official Writers. Official Reporters are covered > by Shield Laws, ordinary reporters are not. Official Publishers have > law professors bemoaning violations of copyright, and so on. I've never argued for official reporter priv (though I have it, naturally). I've even pissed off many of my fellow reporters arguing at a Freedom Forum event a while back that the government is already licensing reporters who apply for congressional press credentials. It's more a question of social norms in this case. If you post rants at timmay.com and slap a coypright notice and some ads up and explicitly ask that they not be redistributed -- well, then you'll soon find that people treat you pretty close to the way they treat Wired. -Declan From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:07:25 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:07:25 -0400 Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: <200108010850.DAA07686@einstein.ssz.com>; from malcolm@nukewoody.com on Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 01:39:45AM -0700 References: <200108010850.DAA07686@einstein.ssz.com> Message-ID: <20010804010725.C30609@cluebot.com> 1. Don't send attachments to cypherpunks 2. See below for the reason why 3. Reread rules 1 and 2 On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 01:39:45AM -0700, Malcolm Idaho wrote: > Given all the discussion about compelled disclosure/distruction of > originals/etc, I thought this document (attached) might be of some use. > > It's by Ian Brown or Hidden Footprints Ltd, and Ben Laurie of A.L. Digital > Ltd. It discusses several approaches to security against "rubber hose" > cryptanalysis, including mention of favorable locations in which to store > sensitive (and encrypted) files, use of stegonographic file systems, the > judicial discovery process in a few contries, key warrants, SigInt, Backups, > document destruction, and gobs more. > > Enjoy > > Malcolm > > [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pdf which had a name of Compelled Disclosure.pdf"; x-mac-creator="4341524F"; x-mac-type="50444620] From drevil at sidereal.kz Fri Aug 3 18:09:01 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 4 Aug 2001 01:09:01 -0000 Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond In-Reply-To: (a3495@cotse.com) References: Message-ID: <20010804010901.15320.qmail@sidereal.kz> > Not safe at all, even the unclassified programs are getting better all the > time. Check the archives for some interesting past discussion--and if you > feel like tinkering around yourself, there's a ton of free software you can > download here: > > http://www.content-analysis.de/software.html Very interesting! I wonder if it is possible to learn to write in other "linguistic fingerprints"? I'll have to look into this. Are there any such programs that are free and run under Linux? From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:17:07 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:17:07 -0400 Subject: archive? Re: Adversaries Would Find Other Attack Methods, Game Theory Shows In-Reply-To: ; from Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de on Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 02:45:06PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20010804011707.D30609@cluebot.com> Ever since John Gilmore went through expensive legal hassles when receiving a subponea for the toad.com archives, I'm surprised that anyone in the U.S. would want to volunteer to host them and announce this publicly. -Declan On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 02:45:06PM +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: > Um, do we have a decent archive, reaching back in time as far as possible, > preferably snarfable as raw inbox or a tarball? (did I already mention > that my connectivity sucks?). > > TIA, > Eugene From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:19:57 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:19:57 -0400 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net>; from hseaver@ameritech.net on Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:02:22PM -0500 References: <3B6A0626.D82699A0@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <20010804011957.E30609@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:02:22PM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: > I think you're getting a little off-track here --- the original > discussion was about whether the court could make the journalist turn > over *all copies* of a document. She wasn't trying to destroy them to > hide anything, > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it --- the interesting > question is whether or not they can somehow expect you to turn over > *all* copies of a document you've published on freenet or mojo. And > whether they are encrypted or not is irrelevant. > Although really, the most serious question everyone should be > asking is why the court wants "all" copies. yeah. After going through this myself, such a situation strikes me as highly unusual. -Declan From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:23:33 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:23:33 -0400 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: ; from bear@sonic.net on Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 10:51:04AM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010804012333.F30609@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 10:51:04AM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: > As long as the remailers themselves are traceable, make no mistake: > they exist only because the lions have not yet passed a law against them. > Of course it would take many -- hundreds -- of jurisdictions acting in concert to do this. There is no evidence that such a global anti-remailer treaty is underway. (Though I have documented many anti-anonymity efforts on the part of U.S. law enforcement.) > You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law > behind, Why not? It already has. -Declan From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:28:40 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:28:40 -0400 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: ; from ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:18:53AM -0500 References: <20010804010455.B30609@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010804012840.A30927@cluebot.com> Why did I ever deprocmail Choate? 1. I've already read Brad's essay years ago 2. I have a lot of respect for Brad but he wrote this from his Clarinet perspective and I don't entirely agree with it 3. In any case, it does not disagree with what I wrote I expect this will be my only response to Choate in the foreseeable future. Sigh. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:18:53AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > This is true, but the reason is that when you post somethin to > > cypherpunks, you're essentially giving an implied license to > > redistribute (and archive, etc). Same with Usenet. > > Bullshit. > > http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html > > In particular #3. > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: > God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. > > B.A. Behrend > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:30:03 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:30:03 -0400 Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: ; from ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:20:01AM -0500 References: <20010804010725.C30609@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010804013003.B30927@cluebot.com> You fool. One of the cypherpunks nodes removed the attachment. Sending attachments to the distributed cypherpunks list when at least one node remove them is about as useful as, well, arguing with Choate. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:20:01AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > 1. Don't send attachments to cypherpunks > > > > 2. See below for the reason why > > > > 3. Reread rules 1 and 2 > > Actually there is no such policy on the CDR. > > Declan doesn't even run a member node so his opinions of what should > happen with other peoples property is irrelevant. > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: > God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. > > B.A. Behrend > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:32:44 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:32:44 -0400 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: ; from bear@sonic.net on Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 08:59:41PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010804013244.C30927@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 08:59:41PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: > And in an agent provocateur mode, the software is illegal the > minute they want it to be -- all they have to do is show a > DMCA violation (which they can manufacture at will) and declare > the software illegal as a "circumvention device". Um, no. The DMCA is not that broad. (If it were, it could outlaw debuggers and disassemblers.) -Declan From declan at well.com Fri Aug 3 22:37:40 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:37:40 -0400 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: ; from tcmay@got.net on Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 03:26:21PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010804013740.D30927@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 03:26:21PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > You are blithering. I don't think you have the foggiest idea what is > being talked about. And instead of learning, you just blither. Another good reference for Aimee would be, naturally, Applied Cryptography. Also the recent MIT Press book that has essays by Tim and Duncan and others would not be terrible (forget the name, I have it out in my car). -Declan From mass_cash at hotmail.com Sat Aug 4 03:28:26 2001 From: mass_cash at hotmail.com (Kristin Lloyd) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:28:26 Subject: An Amazing opportunity! Message-ID: <200108031726.KAA01848@toad.com> Have you Heard? First of all let me just tell you I can't begin to describe how well this has worked for me. Just follow the simple steps given below and I know it will work for you too. AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: ''Making over half a million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time'' THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET! ================================================= BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! Before you say ''Bull'', please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are absolutely NO laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost''. DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still comingin''. Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. ------------------------------------------------------------ Here is another testimonial: "This program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and voila' - 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything''. ------------------------------------------------------------- More testimonails later, but first... ****PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE**** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: ****Order all 5 reports shown on the list below. ****For each report, send $5 CASH with THE NAME & THE NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. ****When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5 = $25.00. ****Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the thousands of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it in a safe place in case something happens to your computer. ****IMPORTANT.... DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through to 6 '' or you will loose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1..After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT #5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2..Move the name & address in REPORT #4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3..Move the name & address in REPORT #3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4..Move the name & address in REPORT #2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5..Move the name & address in REPORT #1 down TO REPORT #2 6..Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT #1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! ================================================= ****Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. ****To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD #1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ================================================= Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e- mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be much higher but lets just say it is only 0.2% . Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1.Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That = 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5 THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH = $500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000 ......... Grand Total = $555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY! ------------------------------------------------------------ REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone, or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, any people will do just that, and more! METHOD #2: BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ================================================= Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with method #1 and add METHOD #2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. _________________AVAILABLE REPORTS__________________ ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. Also, be sure to place the required amount of stamps on your envelopes for the mail going overseas. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: ================================================= REPORT #1 ''The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net'' Order Report #1 from: T. Izario PO Box 155 Chevron Island, Queensland 4217 AUSTRALIA. _____________________________________________________ REPORT #2 ''The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net'' Order Report #2 from : Reagan 609 E Market Ave. Searcy, AR 72143 U.S.A. ____________________________________________________ REPORT #3 ''The Secret to Multilevel marketing on the Net'' Order Report #3 from: J. Lynott P.O. Box 18787 Fairfield, OH 45014 U.S.A. _____________________________________________________ REPORT #4 ''How to become a millionaire utilizing MLM & the Net'' Order Report #4 from: Mircom Box 2202 Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada, L4E1A4 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #5 ''How to Send 1 Million Emails for Free'' Order Report #5 from: Online Marketers PO Box 1044, Vernon, NY 13476-1044 _____________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: ***If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. ***After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT #2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. ***Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business!!! ______________________________________________________ FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: "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 weeks and months than you have ever imagined. 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 report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........#5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails and your name will be on everyone 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! ****************MORE TESTIMONIALS***************** "My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail''. I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I ''knew'' it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so'' on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received total $ 147,200.00 ........... all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her ''hobby''. Mitchell Wolf, M.D., Chicago, Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ ''Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back''. ''I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big''. Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ ''I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else......... 11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks''. Susan DeSuza, New York, N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ ''It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20, 560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanx to internet''. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! ================================================== If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ONE TIME MAILING, NO NEED TO REMOVE //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This message is sent in compliance of the proposed bill SECTION 301. per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618. This message is not intended for residents in the State of Washington, screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Fri Aug 3 18:31:02 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (COFOR) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:31:02 +0200 Subject: LE INTERESARA Message-ID: <200108040137.SAA30536@ecotone.toad.com> 1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas.No lo pienses mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve. Envie e-mail: COTFORTR at terra.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUERRT at terra.es distancia.20 at wanadoo.es Jose Garceran COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL C/Constitucion.34 03310-Alicante España ------------------ From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Fri Aug 3 18:31:09 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (COFOR) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:31:09 +0200 Subject: LE INTERESARA Message-ID: <200108040138.f741ccZ02177@ak47.algebra.com> 1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas.No lo pienses mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve. Envie e-mail: COTFORTR at terra.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUERRT at terra.es distancia.20 at wanadoo.es Jose Garceran COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL C/Constitucion.34 03310-Alicante España ------------------ From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Fri Aug 3 18:31:26 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (COFOR) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:31:26 +0200 Subject: LE INTERESARA Message-ID: <200108040137.SAA30547@ecotone.toad.com> 1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas.No lo pienses mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve. Envie e-mail: COTFORTR at terra.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUERRT at terra.es distancia.20 at wanadoo.es Jose Garceran COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL C/Constitucion.34 03310-Alicante España ------------------ From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Fri Aug 3 18:31:57 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (COFOR) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:31:57 +0200 Subject: LE INTERESARA Message-ID: <200108040147.UAA17637@einstein.ssz.com> 1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas.No lo pienses mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve. Envie e-mail: COTFORTR at terra.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUERRT at terra.es distancia.20 at wanadoo.es Jose Garceran COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL C/Constitucion.34 03310-Alicante España ------------------ From honig at sprynet.com Sat Aug 4 06:16:25 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 06:16:25 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010804003530.02045be0@mail.well.com> References: <3B67C975.18492.417600@localhost> <3B67C975.18492.417600@localhost> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010804061625.008b64a0@pop.sprynet.com> At 12:42 AM 8/4/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >At 09:37 AM 8/1/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >>Exactly so. This list, like so many other lists, is gradually moving >>toward "public politics" and "the law" as the focus of many members. > >More public policy than "public politics," but the general point is true. >I'm not sure what the reason is. Perhaps a combination of more stuff >happening by the Feds than, say, eight years ago. 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help. From tomstdenis at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 07:22:49 2001 From: tomstdenis at yahoo.com (tom st denis) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Oh, the CDR isn't... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010804142249.16795.qmail@web14505.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jim Choate wrote: > > > the WWW either. What the fuck is this? Aren't you a bit email happy? I suggest you slow down your emails... seriously... 79 emails a day is a bit much to one list. Tom __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From honig at sprynet.com Sat Aug 4 07:26:52 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 07:26:52 -0700 Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010804061625.008b64a0@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010804072652.008b3430@pop.sprynet.com> At 08:39 AM 8/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > >> 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were >> a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying >> to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help. > >Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good thing all in all. > Its freedom until she convinces the men with guns From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 4 06:26:54 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:26:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: <20010804012840.A30927@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Why did I ever deprocmail Choate? > 1. I've already read Brad's essay years ago > 2. I have a lot of respect for Brad but he wrote this from his > Clarinet perspective and I don't entirely agree with it Agreement is not fact. > 3. In any case, it does not disagree with what I wrote Yes it does. It simply says that you as a subscriber may use that as any post on usenet is used. It does not in any way reduce the copyright that any author of individual email may have. It does not put it in public domain, it does not release it so that another party may do with it as they wish. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From memcy80201 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 08:28:47 2001 From: memcy80201 at yahoo.com (memcy80201 at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:28:47 Subject: Opportunity Seekers Leads! Message-ID: Start getting a response to your ad! ====================================== For the website, click below: mailto:emcy80201 at yahoo.com?Subject=EmailInfo10 -->Do you want to start getting REPLIES for your offer? -->Do you want those replies to be from someone who's actually interested in what you have to offer? **Visit our site to get the MOST responsive e-mail leads available!** For the website, click below: mailto:emcy80201 at yahoo.com?Subject=EmailInfo10 10,000 e-mails for only $10- NEW 7-31-01! 25,000 e-mails for only $20 50,000 e-mails for only $35 100,000 e-mails for only $50 250,000 e-mails for only $70 **Not an experienced direct mailer? We can send your ad for you! SEE SITE for more details and pricing! New Special~ FREE Stealth Mass Mailer with orders of 250,000! NEW::::::: Check our our Ulimate Marketing CD!:::::::::: E-mail for the site details! - SPECIALS! - **FREE with EVERY order: Demo of ListMan e-mail manager software **Orders of 50,000 or more: FREE copy Express Mail Server to send your messages! -This is not a demo but a permanent license for the software! **Orders of 100,000 or more: - Resale Rights for EMS! -->You keep 100% of the profits - InfoDisk with 1000+ Money Making Reports - CheckMAN software _______________________________________________________________ To be removed from future mailings: mailto:memcy80201 at yahoo.com?Subject=Remove From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 4 06:29:55 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:29:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: <20010804013003.B30927@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > You fool. One of the cypherpunks nodes removed the attachment. Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the contract. More over, the size limitations for messages to the CDR's was agreed to be 1M minimum over a year ago. Check the archives. > Sending attachments to the distributed cypherpunks list when at least > one node remove them is about as useful as, well, arguing with Choate. It's more useful than listening to the drivel that comes out of your mouth, for sure. If you got FACTS I'll accept them, all you ever offer is your opinion, which (at least) when it comes to how the CDR operates is worthless. You don't operate a node, you have nothing to say about policy - that's between you and YOUR node operator. If you're head wasn't so inflated you might have a hope of pulling it out of your ass. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 06:32:19 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:32:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > Don't know where you've been reading the last 10 years, but it's the case all over the Internet that people give the most egregious medical advise (in one case a poster suggested someone break an "addiction" to ephedrine (taken as a diet aid/upper) with some ridiculous chinese herb that, you guessed it, contained ephedrine and caffine. (IIRC it was guarna). > > Similar nonsense abounds. At least most of the legal advice here will get you laughed at in court, not dead. Actually this is a misrepresentation of the vast majority of legal exchange here, it's opinion or personal viewpoint - not advice. You'd think all you legal eagles would understand the distinction. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 4 06:39:43 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:39:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010804061625.008b64a0@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were > a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying > to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help. Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good thing all in all. You don't want others making your decisions or forcing you to behave a particular way. Why should they, simply to assuage your hurt feelings because you don't get it your way?... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 06:44:19 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 08:44:19 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Ricochet Modems == Wireless LAN? Message-ID: <3B6BFC33.46039873@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/08/03/2337255.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 06:48:00 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 08:48:00 -0500 Subject: The Register - Congress tears Media Giant's hearts out Message-ID: <3B6BFD10.2E133DAB@ssz.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20839.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 06:58:23 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 08:58:23 -0500 Subject: Copyright Licenses and Assignments (BitLaw) Message-ID: <3B6BFF7F.A8FFA8A2@ssz.com> Some specific info on 'implied' copyright. http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html The best that Declan can hope for is a 'non-exclusive' copyright, but even that would require an exchange (ie a meeting of minds) between the two parties. However, that won't fly since, as an operator of at least one of the nodes, the policy is that you as the original author release no rights by participating in the CDR itself, implied or otherwise - which I've stated many times (check the archives). So the 'implied' contract perspective falls down because one of the parties involved has EXPLICITLY made known the conditions of use. That over-rides ANY implied anything. Further, by the other nodes agreeing not to modify backbone traffic they have explicitly agreed to this for all parties NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THEIR NODE. What we do have is a EXPRESS LICENSE between node operators. And then a (potentialy) implied (unless they print a policy on a webpage like SSZ does) contract between subscriber and node operator. The CDR is NOT(!!!!!!) Usenet, even if we are distributed over several nodes. -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: license.html Type: text/html Size: 16824 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 4 07:08:49 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 09:08:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Oh, the CDR isn't... Message-ID: the WWW either. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 09:31:06 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 09:31:06 -0700 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B6BC0DA.22819.3BDD15@localhost> On 3 Aug 2001, at 6:03, Aimee Farr wrote: > All we lawyer-types are saying is to engage the law in your problem-solving, > it's in your threat model. Many of your "solutions" are 100% > conflict-avoidance, or even ...conflict-ignorance. A strategic error. Where > there is a corpus, there is a law to get it. You always PLAN FOR CONFLICT. > Hence, we have _The Art Of War_ -- and not, _The Art Of Hiding_. > > Hiding or secrecy as a total strategy has historically been limited by the > Rule Of Secrets/Least Safe Principle, and the equally-important "well, > doesn't this look suspicious!" -- a rule of natural law and human > disposition. Crypto is not a person, object and asset invisibility machine. > Until such a marvel comes to pass, stick to traditional wargaming. > > THE SITUATION: > ------------- > Controverted spies have brought you intelligence that the enemy has a new > long-range weapon. You learn that it works, but you think you lie outside > the current range. However, you learn that it is undergoing rapid > development and experimentation. > > SOME OF YOUR RESPONSES: > ----------------------- > "They're dumb, I hate them, and they can't hit us." > > "IF they've never hit us, THEN they can't." > > "They can't hit what they can't see." > > "We should insult and burn the spies at the stake for bringing us this > information." > > "Bitch. Bitch. Bitch." > > *** > > Within this particular range of hypotheticals, the courts are going to see a > problem and they might reach for spoliation. Arguing over the rightfulness > or wrongfulness of it is a futile exercise. When you learn your adversary is > using a new tactic or developing a new weapon, you examine your own tactics > and adjust them accordingly in ANTICIPATION OF CONFLICT. You assume they > will "get better" unless you do something about it. Given the nature of the > law, there is nothing to be done other than to prepare for advancement and > proliferation. The legal question is never what is - but what will be. In > this light, precedent is not "a rule," it is an aid for prediction. > > "To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the > opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." -- Sun > Tzu. > > A most apt analogy for the law. Where it presents an obstacle, it presents > an opportunity. > > ~Aimee From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 09:31:06 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 09:31:06 -0700 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B6BC0DA.4904.3BDD1F@localhost> -- On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote: > I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of > "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue "objective > chill" in here, that's a legal concept....but clearly, you aren't > interested. With the DCMA and "campaign finance reform" the first amendment has gone the way of the second. Non political speech is not protected because it is non political. Political speech is not protected because it might pressure politicians. We have no precedents that routine destruction of precedents counts as spoilage, but we have ample precedent that any speech can be silenced. In the nature of things, it is far easier to enforce a law against free spech that a law against "spoilage" undertaken long before any charges, thus as we move towards totalitarianism, free speech will go first, is going right now, and broad interpretations of "spoilage" will come last. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vFwRyVw26bcmnTVAmHWVa4hpohmWpeoEFQGcSvra 4KXMRn8toy5+YK/de6MG3wrAYnSnWzP5hSNtQYTzS From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 10:04:37 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:04:37 -0700 Subject: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6A4982.EC666292@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <3B6BC8B5.7226.5A8C3E@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > C'punks, > > So by my count it looks as though we are now up to at least THREE village > idiots. Each convinced that he knows the law (not in theory, but as > practiced in reality) better than the lawyers. I know that for the past several hundred years everyone has been engaging in what what you call "spoilage" (failing to retain potentially incriminating records, and publishing material that might at some later time be declared a thought crime.) Zero busts so far. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vISX2lmgcvBsqRWcFoH5IZsLSeBoD5kb19QGVHcr 4clSYeboF+YuOn/ZXdd/dZFyUu5c00tSeisbetvSE From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 10:04:37 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:04:37 -0700 Subject: Gotti, evidence, case law, remailer practices, civil cases, civilit In-Reply-To: References: <3B69E3E1.11548.513BB9@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6BC8B5.13659.5A8C48@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 7:35, Ray Dillinger wrote: > You are wrong. I went and looked up the Caterpillar cite he gave. > It is real. I, and everyone else with half a brain, has long known that judges frequently say "Hey, we are about to seize a truckload of your documents looking for deep pockets^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hevidence, so don't start shredding. What we doubt is that it is compulsory to retain incriminating evidence, or to irretrievably publish material that might at some future time be declared a thought crime. We also doubt that anyone has been punished for such acts in recent centuries. The current state of the law is illustrated by the Nixon tapes, "The Wind Done Gone", and the DVD ripping code. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Lv4Or/aRW1ltIKBgGuJ1ievWlkgxLUG7tyjWay9n 4eKkwOU4Gi6P27UMPbRdhhRkcSn+Ig9HJV9ynm5SA From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 4 08:05:01 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:05:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The real enemies of the poor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > >The point I'm making is that demeanor and attitude (for example) are > >inextricably linked. > > Sure, but for me both are almost entirely separable from my personal > evaluation of someone's scholarship and competence. See a comment #1 below... > None of this has the slightest bearing on the fact that he's one of the > most brilliant, knowledgeable and incisive people I've ever met: his social > skills deficit is just an unfortunate by-product. You're very description argues against your own assertion. > Why do you think concepts need to be orthagonal to be useful? Comment #1: I don't. I'm simply stating that you're trying to seperate out concepts that are not seperable. You are treating 'components' of a characteristic as seperable and individual from the characteristic itself. This is a false distinction when talking about human psychology (which is what we're talking about when you get right down to it). > No, I realize that I'm probably a little more sensitized to (and upset by) > the way Dr. Alphachimp treats the people around him because I have a > tendency to the same sort of failings myself. Bravo!!!!! I salute you. That I can respect. > head unnoticed. You sure can learn a lot about yourself by stepping back > and noticing how you react when interacting with other people... Agreed. It's also worth noting that at some point you have to ignore what other people think or want as well. At some point you have to say "I don't care". A good example is that many people will critize actions because they hurt other peoples feelings. Not realizing that by complying your own feelings get hurt. It's a conflict of viewpoint, the belief of an absolute when no such exists. > >As to 'know enough to be worth listening to', out of the mouths of babes. > >Sometimes the last person who needs to be talking about a problem is > >somebody that 'knows all about it'. There are other shades of tinted > >glasses besides rose. > > It's important not to shut yourself off from new ideas, but you have to > have a way to decide at what point you're wasting your effort. I put this a different way, It's good to have an open mind, just not so open your brains slosh out on the floor. > Oh not really, it's fine as long as at least one person is able to maintain > the veneer of civility. As long as Dr. Alphachimp never figures out what I > really think of him, it'll be an awesome opportunity to keep learning from > him. I see more of the "genteel patronizing condescension" side anyway, > which helps a lot. Or at least that's the way it feels, ha. Ah, he wants a date...;) > >>If you say so. I've found them to be rather confused myself. > > Not orthagonal enough..? No, confused. It's not the dataset and their manipulation but rather their axioms I find distasteful, the goal they are looking to reach and the base assumptions they leave unsaid (eg almost w/o exception we have mind/body duality as well as human beings somehow 'above' or 'seperate' from the cosmos - raging, rampant, anthropocentracism). This harks back to the comment I made about Newton and pebbles on a beach. Newton once made a comment that when he went in to solve a problem he had no pre-concieved notion of the end result. He simply played (that's a very strong paraphrase). It's a rare view that just looks at what is there and doesn't try to prove/resolve some aspect of themselves in the process. > >They all seem to be trying to get around basic fundamental facts they > >don't want to face. > > Oh yeah? Schopenhauer is about as honest and real as they come. In many ways I agree. However even he has a fundamental problem with respect to his base philosophy. He was an atheist yet was understanding of Christianity and other relgions (eg his exploration into Vedic philosophy). This represents a mind/body duality problem though, which seriously undermines the applicability of his views. Why? He fails to recognize that being an atheist, christian, whatever is nothing more than anthropocentricism. His fundamental assumption isn't that humanity somehow stands on a divide but is that divide. He took a stand to resolve conflicts as a result of his world view, not recognizing that the world view WAS the problem. He didn't step out of his humanity (in fact this is the failure of all Utopian sojourns). The ONLY exception to this failing in philosophy that I've found is Pantheism, which is very rare. Only a handful of non-antropocentric philosophers have written (and no I don't even agree with all of them, Spinoza for example was of the belief that 'rights' were an extension of society and that irrespective of social harm one should submit - then compare this to his life ling running from persecution, he was excommunicated from the Jewish religion as a result). Both Schopenhauer and Spinoza almost got there. > That's a pretty heavy dose of Platonism, no? No. Socrates. > ...whole lotta reification goin' on... Not really, there is no concept of 'universality'. We're not making a statement about that which we are answering question, only how we answer questions. The Socratic Method isn't about finding 'reality' or 'fundamental essence' (ie crap) but rather about finding conflicts in the thought process. In the Socratic method the discussion is more on how you got to the conclusion, not how you carried it out. > Just because an event is nonlinear and non-determined doesn't mean it > negated the laws of causality. No, but they obfuscate any hope of actually determining what that causality is. The distinction between 'there is no causality' and 'there is no way to determine causality' isn't that great a void from a pragmatic perspective. Either way, it's a dead end road. > The building blocks are much smaller and > less obvious, but they're still present in some form, even when they're not > readily ascertainable. That's as good a definition of 'faith' as I've ever run across...;) > preceeding it were in place. Is there a great degree of freedom in > discovery? Of course, but you have to have some mental dice to throw before > you can throw them! Now we're into that 'free will' discussion I don't want to have...our answering the question iwth a flat 'of course' isn't good reasoning. You are in effect presenting an axiomatic assumption as a derivative conclusion. Arguing in circles. {and yes, I fully recognize that the basic tenets of 'science' are nothing more than the basic tenets of 'religion' - faith. The distinction being the acceptance, and management thereof, of the concept of 'transcendence'. Which is another aspect of the 'human condition' that I think every philosopher to date has skipped merrily around.) > That issue is fairly clear-cut for me. But if you were to ask me about > something I'm more ambivalent about--say, "globalization"--it's easy to > imagine having simultaneous viewpoints that are seemingly contradictory on > a superficial level. You are confusing 'understanding' with 'holding'. The killer word in your assertion is 'ambivalent' you are admitting you hold no opinion (and that 'no opinion' is itself singular). [About contradicting yourself, see 'Para-consistent Logic'. Note that at no time have I asserted that paradoxes are not real. In my mind the question is whether one sees this conflict as a 'universal' or something that is unique to the 'human perspective'.] > No, but then there's the issue of whether you really can, or just think you > can. If you can use the 'understanding' to make accurate predictions then you have some sort of handle that others who can't don't have. > If you're sensitive enough to be able to pick up on how and why > someone formed a certain view, it helps. Great page on empathy, analogy and > cognitive processes: > > http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html Empathy and consideration are great tools, provided they don't become singularly important (eg politicaly correct). Given the choice of hurting your feelings by saying something that is real and concrete and not saying it and hurting myself in the process, you're feelings are toast. People have a right to 'pursue happiness', the unsaid assertion is that peoples natural state is 'unhappy'. A person has no right to interfere with anothers pursuite of that happiness, but they don't have a responsiblity to help nor do they have a responsiblity to hurt themselves to minimize the others discomfiture. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 08:09:12 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:09:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: What You Don't Know Will Kill You In-Reply-To: <200108041421.KAA00926@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > Hans Mark, a septugenarian DoD official in a seminar at Harvard > on "Intelligence, Command and Control," in Spring 2000 said: > > "It is as bad to have too much information as it is not to have any. > Both contribute to Clausewitzs fog of war. Bullshit, the problem with 'fog of war' and too much intel is not having a system that can rate and manage that intel. It's not the information, it's the manipulator who is failing here and generating the fog of war. > It is not good to have a > completely transparent communications system. The private does > not need to know what the general knows. In fact, if the private knew > what the general knows, he might not want to go over the next hill." Pashendale, Ypers, Hurtgen Forest, Vietnam... Sometimes the general is an ass and shouldn't be followed. > Mark says he believes in unquestioned command authority as the > most essential quality of the military, over weapons, strategy, > tactics and intelligence. All socialist/fascist do, otherwise they'd be out of a job. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 08:11:10 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:11:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Laws of mathematics, not of men In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010804072652.008b3430@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > At 08:39 AM 8/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > >On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > > > >> 8 years ago the number who had a net-clue was small, and they were > >> a more tolerant bunch. Now you have every ditz in Tennessee trying > >> to shape the net to her liking, and getting men with guns to help. > > > >Which is that 'freedom' thing, that is a good thing all in all. > > > > Its freedom until she convinces the men with guns Really? If I were under assault I'd certainly not hesitate to use whatever force was required to protect myself. This goes right back to 'freedom', you have the freedom to do whatever you want until it inerferes with somebody else. Then you must(!) cease the interference. If you don't then guns, at least in some cases, are an acceptable responce. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 4 08:13:17 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:13:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Copyright Licenses and Assignments (BitLaw) In-Reply-To: <20010804105525.B20864@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Nobody ever said the CDR was Usenet. You have used that comparison numerous time. Check the archives. In fact it is the fundamental cornerstone of your 'implied contract' argument. Once we differentiate the two your assertion has nothing to stand on. The CDR is not a public service nor is it a 'universal' service like USENET. It IS(!!!) a mailign list operated by private individuals which is participated in by private individuals who must individual subscribe (which is a big distinction itself with the way USENET operates). -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From drevil at sidereal.kz Sat Aug 4 03:18:22 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 4 Aug 2001 10:18:22 -0000 Subject: Book1 In-Reply-To: <200108040811.DAA22963@einstein.ssz.com> (message from CHIUPING on Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:12:48 +0800) References: <200108040811.DAA22963@einstein.ssz.com> Message-ID: <20010804101822.19188.qmail@sidereal.kz> I hope the Gov't of Taiwan does a better job at keeping the Reds out than they do of keeping viruses out of their networks. From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 4 10:22:19 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 10:22:19 -0700 Subject: What You Don't Know Will Kill You Message-ID: <200108041421.KAA00926@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Hans Mark, a septugenarian DoD official in a seminar at Harvard on "Intelligence, Command and Control," in Spring 2000 said: "It is as bad to have too much information as it is not to have any. Both contribute to Clausewitzs fog of war. It is not good to have a completely transparent communications system. The private does not need to know what the general knows. In fact, if the private knew what the general knows, he might not want to go over the next hill." Mark says he believes in unquestioned command authority as the most essential quality of the military, over weapons, strategy, tactics and intelligence. He acknowledged that commanders made mistakes but that history has shown the validity of supreme command authority. Elsewhere one reads that commanders are taught that casualties are inevitable in war and that the resolute commander will not hesitate to order an action that will certainly cause death. Corollary of Mark's moral: be a commander never a follower or, best, avoid heirarchies of rank and their promugators. Better than best is to destroy heirarchies. For getting followers to obey commands requires bountiful deception and betrayal. That is called morale building, esprit de corps, patriotism, putting the nation, the unit, your comrades above your self-preservation. Believers in heirarchies get really pissed when you question their authority, and will kill you to show who is boss, or more likely order an underling commander to order a blind faith warrior to do it with a stand-off weaponry created for cowards. Check out the NY Times Magazine's featured piece tomorrow on the US plan to command the world through space weaponry. All doomsday gadgets commanded from Earth by e-generals pushing Linux sysadmins' buttons with dreams of generalship for all just over the hill. Why is command-authority IBM, Oracle and Sun getting so deeply in bed with the Linux mavericks under cover of combating Microsoft? From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 08:30:01 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:30:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: (certificate-less) digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the internet (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:51:41 -0700 From: Lynn.Wheeler at firstdata.com To: cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: (certificate-less) digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the internet press release ("digital signatures can secure ATM card payments on the Internet") http://www.nacha.org/news/news/pressreleases/2001/PR072301/pr072301.htm results http://internetcouncil.nacha.org/Projects/ISAP_Results/isap_results.htm the report http://internetcouncil.nacha.org/Projects/ISAP_Results/ISAPresultsDocument-Final-2.PDF includes the following from the above ... The "real-world" viability of the proposed ANSI X9.59 standard concept for electronic payments using public/private key pairs, which is also known as Account Authority Digital Signature (AADS), was validated by the ISAP Pilot results. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using PKI without digital certificates, thereby minimizing infrastructure requirements and costs for utilizing the ISAP process. ============================ The rfi for the above: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/nacharfi.htm additional information on x9.59 and AADS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn nacha web site http://www.nacha.org/ nacha organization Welcome to NACHA Welcome to the web site of NACHA - The Electronic Payments Association. Here you will find the latest information on the innovative and dynamic world of electronic payments. Electronic payments of all kinds are used frequently by people, companies, and government agencies as a safe, reliable and convenient way to conduct business. Direct Deposit is used for payroll, travel and expense reimbursements, annuities and pensions, dividends, and government payments such as Social Security and Veterans benefits. Other types of electronic payments are frequently used for bill payments, retail purchases, Internet purchases, corporate payments and treasury management, and for the provision of food stamps and other government cash assistance. NACHA is a not-for-profit trade association that develops operating rules and business practices for the Automated Clearing House (ACH) Network and for other areas of electronic payments. NACHA activities and initiatives facilitate the adoption of electronic payments in the areas of Internet commerce, electronic bill payment and presentment (EBPP), financial electronic data interchange (EDI), international payments, electronic checks, electronic benefits transfer (EBT) and student lending. We also promote the use of electronic payment products and services, such as Direct Deposit and Direct Payment. NACHA represents more than 12,000 financial institutions through our network of regional ACH associations. We have over 600 members in our seven industry councils and corporate Affiliate Membership program. I hope you will find this web site to be a valuable resource. Please come again! --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 10:43:36 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:43:36 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> References: Message-ID: <3B6BD1D8.28175.7E3BD7@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 9:48, Greg Broiles wrote: > Courts have relatively strong powers with respect to controlling the > possession and disposition of physical things like notebooks or hard disks, > but relatively weak powers with respect to limiting the dissemination of > information not in the court's exclusive possession, so long as the > disseminator is not a party to a case before the court, nor an attorney for > a party. This, folks, accurately summarizes the state of the law, as illustrated by numerous recent high profile cases, and any pompous pontificating fool who claims to be a lawyer and says something different, is full of shit. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG dSV6sI6yQ2/jieC4fpBN7te3dg/Ah5VH2uFW0sKW 4BMa39ojsj5zW2GHC0CbxCCaUmgmRViBZ3F2MHnvP From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 10:43:36 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:43:36 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6A73E8.25230.708BC7@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6BD1D8.16575.7E3BF5@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 10:07, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all. The > important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they may show a > TREND in the law. ] There is a trend to making everything illegal. Your qualifications to read tea leaves are no better than my own. By the time "spoilation" reaches the condition that you anticipate, we will not be hiring lawyers for their knowledge of the law, but for their knowledge of connections. As everything becomes illegal laws to cease to be laws. Increasingly legislation is not a rule, but merely a desire, rendering lawyers irrelevant. For example biotech companies usually do not hire lawyers to deal with the FDA, instead they provide FDA bureaucrats with girlfriends, "consultancy payments", and the like, because the FDA does not obey any fixed set of rules or principles in dealing with biotech companies. At the company I work for we have a big problem with a piece of legislation whose meaning is far from clear. Every few lines of this legislation there is reference to "children", or "the children". My interpretation of this legislation is "We care very much about children, and we feel so deeply we are going to bust some internet company for not caring as deeply as we do." Our company lawyer has no clear interpretation of this legislation, and suspect we would be a lot safer if we opened direct communications with the bureaucrats charged with intepreting and applying this legislation, rather than communicating through someone whose speciality and training is in finding and making trouble. We need someone whose speciality is being nice, making friends, and trading favors. Even better would be to do like the biotech companies, and open communication through a compliant woman, and throw in a few consultancy fees. In Mexico, lawyers are fixers, matchmakers that guide your bribes into the right pockets. The time is coming for American lawyers to stop pontificating about the law and make the same transition. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6sCz2aeqtaUMwXK7XL2AZ9J8ZO0CqLdFbEfs0F3L 4qFdvH5dA/nEnrUvk+rZ5TD0tGcOO4gUjo8LTFTlE From declan at well.com Sat Aug 4 07:47:03 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:47:03 -0400 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: ; from aimee.farr@pobox.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20010804104703.A20864@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim. > YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator? Hahahahahaha. > > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to > > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on > > U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as > > an exercise for you.) > > Indeed, what I was trying to get at might have been "somewhat related." > > I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA > (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in the United > States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it. I'm not sure if much can be gained by comparing anonymous remailers to commercial mail drops. USPS is a strange and weird beast, and guards its territory ferociously. Activities that happen in its sphere are logically and legally distinct from those happening online. -Declan From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 10:51:12 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:51:12 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B6BD3A0.24582.8533BC@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 12:07, Tim May wrote: > A distributed set of remailers in N > different jurisdictions is quite robust against prosecutorial fishing > expeditions As governments become more lawless, and laws become mere desires of the powerful, rather than any fixed set of rules, the state is increasing less one powerful entity, rather it becomes numerous entities each with their own conflicting desires. The danger is not that the US will turn into the Russia of the 1950s, but merely that it will turn into the Russia of the 1990s, a far less threatening prospect. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qKJyYXYe2okyEhEp3rBXnrxcTNa1wfOGIuhA/0FY 4F/Y898UAwZpSU+bFjS1rygc8qLMNpT/4WDEJIc3w From declan at well.com Sat Aug 4 07:55:25 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:55:25 -0400 Subject: Copyright Licenses and Assignments (BitLaw) In-Reply-To: <3B6BFF7F.A8FFA8A2@ssz.com>; from ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:58:23AM -0500 References: <3B6BFF7F.A8FFA8A2@ssz.com> Message-ID: <20010804105525.B20864@cluebot.com> Nobody ever said the CDR was Usenet. Choate is tilting at windmills again, a crazed smile on a manical face as he bounces around his padded room. Nevertheless it is similar in one or two respects. People posting to cypherpunks offer an implied license for people to archive and redistribute for the purposes of transmission and redistribute on an archive site their copyrighted works. This is not the same as giving up copyright (I'm sure I've sold some articles that I've posted in preliminary draft form to cypherpunks at one point or another). I vaguely recall that this is one of Choate's pet topics, worms have burrowed deep into his skull and preclude even the usual state of gibbering nonsense. So I doubt I'll say anything more here. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:58:23AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > Some specific info on 'implied' copyright. > > http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html > > The best that Declan can hope for is a 'non-exclusive' copyright, but even > that would require an exchange (ie a meeting of minds) between the two > parties. However, that won't fly since, as an operator of at least one of > the nodes, the policy is that you as the original author release no rights > by participating in the CDR itself, implied or otherwise - which I've stated > many times (check the archives). So the 'implied' contract perspective falls > down because one of the parties involved has EXPLICITLY made known the > conditions of use. That over-rides ANY implied anything. Further, by the > other nodes agreeing not to modify backbone traffic they have explicitly > agreed to this for all parties NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THEIR NODE. > > What we do have is a EXPRESS LICENSE between node operators. And then a > (potentialy) implied (unless they print a policy on a webpage like SSZ does) > contract between subscriber and node operator. > > The CDR is NOT(!!!!!!) Usenet, even if we are distributed over several > nodes. > > > -- > > -- > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: > God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. > > B.A. Behrend > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 10:57:39 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:57:39 -0700 Subject: WHERE'S DILDO (AND FRIENDS)? was: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BC8B5.7226.5A8C3E@localhost> Message-ID: James Donald (Village Idiot #2) wrote: > I know that for the past several > hundred years everyone has been > engaging in what what you call > "spoilage"... Pay attention James, I have never discussed "spoilage" (or spoliation, for that matter) on this list. In the future, please direct your ignorance towards the party with whom you have a dispute. S a n d y From wmo at pro-ns.net Sat Aug 4 09:05:10 2001 From: wmo at pro-ns.net (Bill O'Hanlon) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:05:10 -0500 Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <20010804013003.B30927@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010804110510.A41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if > they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the > contract. Contract? From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 4 11:06:04 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:06:04 -0700 Subject: Regulation of Mixes under Postal Laws? In-Reply-To: <20010804104703.A20864@cluebot.com> References: <20010804104703.A20864@cluebot.com> Message-ID: (Title changed to reflect focus.) At 10:47 AM -0400 8/4/01, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim. ... >> > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to >> > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on >> > U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as >> > an exercise for you.) >> >> Indeed, what I was trying to get at might have been "somewhat related." >> >> I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA >> (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in the United >> States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it. > >I'm not sure if much can be gained by comparing anonymous remailers >to commercial mail drops. USPS is a strange and weird beast, and guards >its territory ferociously. Activities that happen in its sphere are >logically and legally distinct from those happening online. A "remailer" uses the term "mail" in it because "e-mail" is the obvious term we have been using for about 20 years now. Obviously e-mail can consist of all sorts of messages, including "instant messaging," messages picked up at POP sites, and Web-based messaging. Their is no bright line between "e-mail" and "chat" and "voice communications" and "article posts." I am unaware of any solid legislation (tested in the courts) attempting to regulate e-mail in the same way ordinary USPS and international mail is regulated. Certainly there are no postage requirements. Some yammer a bunch of years ago about the USPS thinking it should "handle" all e-mail and collect a 29-cent fee on each message...died unceremoniously, for many good practical, technological, and constituent-anger reasons. The "anti-spam" rules are close to telephone dialing and fax machine rules than they are to USPS junk mail rules (such as they are). A mix is not just a remailer: it can be viewed quite legitimately as a _publisher_. A mix collects a bunch of submissions, pools them by its own rules, and then distributes the published set in various ways. If "e-mail" per se is ever regulated in the way Aimee thinks may be coming, a small matter to switch from a mix that "looks like mail" to one that is much more packet-based having no involvement with POP types of protocols. Freedom, from ZKS, already looks like packets, right? In fact, message pools using Usenet have been around for about 8 years now. Any attempt to declare remailers to be illegal mail drops would simply move the nexus of activity to Usenet and other Net locations. Restricting what people can post to Usenet or some other bulletin board or message site would be both tough to enforce technologically and counter to nearly every tenet of U.S. rights. (Not coincidentally did I use a graphic I made up of a "Democracy Wall" to show how messages could be left untraceably and read untraceably. This in 1990, BTW.) The point being that the U.S. tends to stay out of regulating what a publisher does, what his policies are, rather strongly. It's not just a matter of "toilet plunger" and "The Court is not amused" ("Please don't make Mr. Happy Fun Court angry!") sorts of shut-downs. No judge in the land is going to order the shut down of "Mix Publishing" just because he thinks the site is not amusing. (Note that neither Paladin Press nor Loompanics Press were ever shut down or enjoined from distributing the assassination manuals they used to sell. A civil suit and damages caused the titles to be pulled, but not a judge or regulatory body.) If "The Progressive" is free from interference in how it chooses to publish H-bomb secrets, does even Aimee think a site which collects together submissions and publishes them is going to be regulated? I hope Aimee takes a few hours to grok the essence of "digital mixes." She will then see that there is no particular binding to "e-mail" qua "mail" and no bright line between use of e-mail for the mixes and use of other channels of communication for mixes. And no lawyer would argue that Congressional regulation/ownership of some aspects of paper mail delivery then grants Congressional control of publishing, chat rooms, postings to Usenet and Web forums, and machine-to-machine connections. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay at got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 11:07:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:07:26 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6AA57C.9.110CDEB@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <3B6BD76E.26411.940FE0@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:22, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge > can legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order > to enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is, > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare to > suggest that I should anticipate the possibility of a gag > order and preemptively gag myslef in case one might be issued > at a later date. Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, lawyers will irrelevant, and will have been irrelevant for a long time before the such anyone attempts such crap. These guys (Black Unicorn and his cheer squad) are loons, and I cannot imagine why they post such nonsense. The argument they seem to be making is that judges, legislators, and bureaucrats are becoming increasingly lawless, therefore we should treat lawyers with worshipful respect. But that argument is completely back to front. As governments become more lawless, laws and lawyers become less relevant, not more relevant. As government becomes more lawless, first one hires fixers in place of lawyers, then whores in place of fixers, then gunmen in place of whores. American business in general is moving towards fixers, biotech is already largely past fixers to whores, and in Russia it is gunmen. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG yaXRYjQRaqKdRfYIdQ2uzBW1hnXxeNFzod0WHqd2 420eZw9m6TUyezphE2Z2tbXIvV4/9aHVQJTHAeRJE From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 11:07:40 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:07:40 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BD1D8.16575.7E3BF5@localhost> Message-ID: VI2 wrote: > There is a trend to making > everything illegal. Your > qualifications to read tea > leaves are no better than my own. Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves are no better than your own. However, my qualifications for reading and understanding laws and court precedents are vastly superior to yours. (For what it's worth, I'm sure there must be something you are more qualified to do; I just don't know what it is.) > By the time "spoilation" reaches > the condition that you anticipate, > we will not be hiring lawyers for > their knowledge of the law, but > for their knowledge of connections. (a) Since I have not discussed the topic of "spoilation" (or even spoliation) on this list, you are obviously reaching. You have no idea what I anticipate. (b) You have just given a very good additional reason to hire lawyers in addition to their obvious superiority in understanding legal trends. With regard to (b), not a lot of mainstream lawyers are going to be sympathetic or versed in the sorts of things you and other people on this list are likely to run afoul of. It's interesting to me that you and the other two village idiots seem hell bent on antagonizing your most likely legal allies. But then, you are village idiots. S a n d y From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 4 09:10:07 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:10:07 -0500 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: <20010804104703.A20864@cluebot.com> Message-ID: Declan wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim. > > YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator? > > Hahahahahaha. That's the damn truth, isn't it? > > > mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to > > > mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on > > > U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as > > > an exercise for you.) > > > > Indeed, what I was trying to get at might have been "somewhat related." > > > > I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA > > (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in > the United > > States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it. > > I'm not sure if much can be gained by comparing anonymous remailers > to commercial mail drops. USPS is a strange and weird beast, and guards > its territory ferociously. Activities that happen in its sphere are > logically and legally distinct from those happening online. > > -Declan Yeah, I know. I'm was just sitting here fuming over the proposed amendments to the commercial office suites. This is just silly. USPS is a giant bitch in need of a leash. (...We are speaking of the private mail agency rules requiring PMB or # address designation, IDs, record-keeping, reporting, etc.) ~Aimee From Wilfred at Cryogen.com Sat Aug 4 08:13:23 2001 From: Wilfred at Cryogen.com (Wilfred L. Guerin) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 11:13:23 -0400 Subject: CodeRed Fix ~ Logistics In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.3.32.20010803180326.0154af78@ct2.nai.net> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010804111323.009a1868@ct2.nai.net> Valid points, though I open for discussion the following logistic issues: Though the various new policies of various political bodies may have fluctuated recently, historicly there has been a loophole for which an attacked entity can respond with due intent to cease the attack via appropriate means. In this case, I see random IIS servers "attacking" my server, as do others. With this being the case, and their initiation of transaction, it should be appropriate to cease their inappropriate activities. This would dictate a mechanism capable of ceasing the origin of the attack, in this case, defective code in the IIS servers. My impression, is that direct isolation of an attacking facility for disabling purposes only, with intent to maintain the stability of the attacked host/subnet is well within historic legal bounds. Inversely, has there been any alteration of this policy recently? What is the current situation? ... On the other hand, I wouldnt be contrary to the development of a breach-utilizing derivative of the TSADBot systems and their fed-protected recon capabilities and transparent m$ security, combined with various inlet portals in typical security faults, and capable of directed and automated "Cleaning" of dysfunctional machines. Basicly, the ultimate breach system with intent of eliminating future braches. (We've done this for high security networks, server arrays, etc,) however a mass implementation with intent to fix or replace defective product code would be highly effective. What say the world to doing things right for once? "Baaah." Oh well. Again, response regarding policy issues would be appreciated. -Wilfred Wilfred at Cryogen.com At 12:11 AM 8/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Wilfred L. Guerin wrote: >> With eeye and others releaseing codeRed src almost a month ago, has anyone >> bothered to modify the worm and bother distributing (by force) the file >> checked by the current worm which will suppress its operation? > >Not that I am aware of. > >> This is such an obvious fix, however noone seems to have yet had a clue to >> do it? > >This is due to the possible illegality. Your "vaccine" would certainly >get investigated by any clued-in admin who noticed it. You would possibly >get attention from some LEAs, regardless of your intentions. > >> If that many can be infected by using a psuedo-random sequence, this could >> be easily traced or more effectively a far more effective sequencing >> pattern for the disbersal could be utilized... > >A revised version of Code Red (called Code Red v2 or CRv2) was released >shortly after eEye discovered the original Code Red. CRv2 had a much >better PRNG than the original Code Red worm, and did not attack the same >sequence of hosts. > >> Moreso, if noone is competant to have yet done this, can anyone provide an >> EXTREMELY stable high-load capacity box which can accept reporting of >> infected hosts? -- This would be highly useful in the target analysis of >> the worm's progress... > >The incidents at securityfocus.com list is probably tracking Code Red >infections and coordinating some soft of response to affected sites. > >> Granted, this is a distributed infiltration mechanism, however, I somehow >> doubt the stateside feds and other morons would be contradicting of ceasing >> a distributed attack, even if we do not bother to stop the wh.gov >> targeting... > >Ask Max Vision of whitehats.com what happened to him when he created a >program to patch vulnerable Internet software (bind, I think it was). Oh >wait, he's in prison at the moment. This probably had something to do >with him planting a backdoor along with the fix, but I wouldn't risk it. > >John Schultz >jschultz at coin.org > > > > From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 4 09:44:10 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:44:10 -0500 Subject: About lawyers and spoliation In-Reply-To: <3B6BC0DA.4904.3BDD1F@localhost> Message-ID: You may be right, James....I fear. This just in from the criminal spoliation sector (realize the important distinctions - here, the government is destroying evidence...) United States v. Wright, No 00-5010 (6th Cir. August 03, 2001) http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01a0255p.06 ~Aimee > -----Original Message----- > From: jamesd at echeque.com [mailto:jamesd at echeque.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:31 AM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com; Aimee Farr > Subject: RE: About lawyers and spoliation > > > -- > On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote: > > I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of > > "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue > "objective > > chill" in here, that's a legal concept....but clearly, you aren't > > interested. > > With the DCMA and "campaign finance reform" the first amendment > has gone the way of the second. Non political speech is not > protected because it is non political. Political speech is not > protected because it might pressure politicians. > > We have no precedents that routine destruction of precedents > counts as spoilage, but we have ample precedent that any speech > can be silenced. > > In the nature of things, it is far easier to enforce a law > against free spech that a law against "spoilage" undertaken long > before any charges, thus as we move towards totalitarianism, free > speech will go first, is going right now, and broad > interpretations of "spoilage" will come last. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > vFwRyVw26bcmnTVAmHWVa4hpohmWpeoEFQGcSvra > 4KXMRn8toy5+YK/de6MG3wrAYnSnWzP5hSNtQYTzS From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 09:54:35 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:54:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: <20010804110510.A41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if > > they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the > > contract. > > > Contract? Explicit written (ie email) contract at that. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ericm at lne.com Sat Aug 4 12:00:34 2001 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:00:34 -0700 Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: <20010804013003.B30927@cluebot.com>; from declan@well.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:30:03AM -0400 References: <20010804010725.C30609@cluebot.com> <20010804013003.B30927@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010804120034.A4348@slack.lne.com> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:30:03AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > You fool. One of the cypherpunks nodes removed the attachment. > Sending attachments to the distributed cypherpunks list when at least > one node remove them is about as useful as, well, arguing with Choate. > > -Declan > > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:20:01AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > > > 1. Don't send attachments to cypherpunks > > > > > > 2. See below for the reason why > > > > > > 3. Reread rules 1 and 2 > > > > Actually there is no such policy on the CDR. Jim's correct- there is no such "policy" on the overall cypherpunks list. It's just one CDR (lne) that's demiming posts. Here's how demime works related to the lne CDR: Posts that are received (enter the CDR system) at lne and are forwarded to the other CDRs are demimed. Posts originating from another CDR are demimed on the way to lne CDR subscribers. Posts originating from another CDR and being forwarded to another CDR aren't demimed. The lne CDR welcome message, and the message I posted to cypherpunks when announcing the lne CDR, simply said: "Lne.com runs the input to its CDR list through demime (http://scifi.squawk.com/demime.html) which deletes MIME attachments from mail. Demime leaves a note in the attachments place, so that recipients know that there was some cruft there." I'll update the welcome message to reflect the details I posted above. Demiming posts that originate at lne and go to other CDRs is an artifact of how I set up the list. Since lne CDR subscribers see demimed posts, they're likely to be, um, trained to post non-MIME, and thus shouldn't be affected much by this setup. There's no CDR contract. At least I didn't sign one. There is an informal agreement, or a set of same. I've tried to announce ahead of time what I'm doing, and to stick with what I've announced, limited by the time I'm willing to put in to the project. As far as I'm concerned that's what's required. Having one CDR demime posts does unfortunately create a discrepency between what the lne CDR subscribers see vs. the other CDR subscribers... but there's already a pretty big discrepancy there, as the lne CDR subscribers aren't seeing the spam that's posted to cypherpunks. It doesn't seem to harm the discussion any. But Declan (and everyone else) should remember that not everyone sees the same list they do. > > Declan doesn't even run a member node so his opinions of what should > > happen with other peoples property is irrelevant. His opinion is important since he's both an active list member and a lne CDR subscriber. As always I'm open to reasoned non-inflamatory suggestions, especially from lne CDR subscribers. BTW, the other day I switched majordomo to delete the Received: lines in posts to the lne CDR recipients-- posts that go through a number of CDRs get a lot of Received lines added to them, and some subscriber's MTAs were rejecting mail because of too many Received lines. If this bothers you and you're an lne CDR subscriber let me know and when I get a chance I'll hack up something to nuke just some of the Received lines. I've also found the source of the wrapped Message-Ids and I'll be fixing it soon. Eric From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 10:04:23 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 12:04:23 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows Message-ID: <3B6C2B17.A21E1430@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/04/0228234.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 12:05:12 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:05:12 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010803135314.008abd50@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3B6BE4F8.5854.C8F0CD@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 22:43, Aimee Farr wrote: > Neither Uni nor I suggested that routine document destruction is > inappropriate in the ordinary course of business. I understood black unicorn, and Sandy, to be claiming it was inappropriate, and quite dangerous. You, while more cautious than they, seemed to endorse their position, without being very clear as to what it was you were endorsing. Black Unicorn's argument seemed to be "Everything is forbidden, therefore you need to hire a lawyer who will issue the magic incantations to make it legal. This is nonsense on two counts: 1. Not everything is forbidden. 2. If everything is forbidden, then lawyers have no magic incantations. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG KVURnDrFjBLaIMUnrQF4jJ/6XGm6Fe56w0c6HDmO 4jkT6RK0+blfBnsJVbGhAe97M4AxK14w+URbO5ubE From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 12:05:12 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:05:12 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010803135314.008abd50@pop.sprynet.com> References: <3B6A73E8.17070.708BD1@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6BE4F8.16729.C8F0C3@localhost> On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:53, David Honig wrote: > After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter > official policy to destroy email after N days. As if Ollie et al. wasn't > enough. If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" in their current lawsuit, then I will take Sandy and Black Unicorn off my loon list. :-) From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 12:05:12 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:05:12 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B6BE4F8.15425.C8F0CD@localhost> -- On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > You cannot have encryption technologies advancing and leaving the law > behind, so long as any vital part of the infrastructure you need is > traceable and pulpable by the law. Child porn still gets distributed through usenet. Silencing "alt.anonymous.messages" would be even harder. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG D3mSaXUOKtpBwVa0yzglN3AvpL5bobypB96Q/AKi 4/iQQK3RkSE349+qsFPX3zwyPj3kjETgblPuQ1wFl From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 12:32:50 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:32:50 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6BD1D8.16575.7E3BF5@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6BEB72.1730.E23F9C@localhost> -- James A. Donald: > > There is a trend to making > > everything illegal. Your > > qualifications to read tea > > leaves are no better than my own. Sandy Sandfort > Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves > are no better than your own. However, my qualifications for reading and > understanding laws and court precedents are vastly superior to yours. If the claims you are making are claims about existing law, your qualifications for reading and undestanding laws and court precedents are not what you claim them to be. If you are making claims about what the law might become in future, your qualifications for undestanding laws and court precedents are irrelevant. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG /JUhfzDVQCF/7NKP7QU1UGB738ENkVXkkgb3MUho 4r8gCfjL6dZ1G4PYIxS3LTIlIQ6LnjaS7n8qr81Lr From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 12:32:50 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:32:50 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B6BEB72.3585.E23F92@localhost> -- On 3 Aug 2001, at 20:59, Ray Dillinger wrote: > the point is, that's enough. Both endpoints on such a packet's > route are participants, obviously. If they want to shut it > down, and they have seen such a packet, they have two people > they can shut down. Repeat ad nauseam, and the infrastructure > is destroyed. This assumes a unity and cohesion that lawless states are rarely capable of. If a government is so oppressive that it is doing that, government officials will have probably already stolen the wires for the copper, and will not have the technology to figure out what is going on over the ether. As I posted a few posts earlier, our threat model should be a state like 1990s Russia, not a state like 1950s Russia. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG iuvEcTXaEjdxhvNDFW6tl/mYM/vsSrIMHqt9YOd4 41rOOe3fLMOd3B0WSk396teZ/1WIy1JSb0P+nrmq5 From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 12:32:50 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:32:50 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B6BEB72.23584.E23FA6@localhost> -- Harmon Seaver > > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all > > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it. At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote: > Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point > you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the > opposite of what you claim above. A couple of posts ago Aimee confidently declared that none of the people presenting themselves as lawyers on this list had made the claim that you just made again. She is backpeddling, because it has become obvious your claim is nonsense, and the fact that you made it, (and perhaps she made it also before denying that she or anyone else had made it) shows you do not know shit from beans. So, unicorn, when are they going to bust microsoft for suddenly enforcing a policy of purging old email? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Au38iVX2zXvYvErjQyRaAVHpCKctxga5f/ey5tKo 4Kinm5mjm7cxjymJi84l4gZy3LNr3OG8A4zERWWaF From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 12:34:55 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:34:55 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BE4F8.5854.C8F0CD@localhost> Message-ID: James Donald (VI2) can't seem to keep his people, arguments or facts straight. He wrote: > I understood black unicorn, and > Sandy, to be claiming it [routine > document destruction in the > ordinary course of business] was > inappropriate, and quite dangerous. Time to take that remedial reading course you've been putting off, Jim. (a) You will find zero posts from me regarding this subject. (b) You will find zero posts from Black Unicorn taking the extreme position you ascribe to him (and me). This is called a "straw man" argument. Look it up. > Black Unicorn's argument seemed > to be "Everything is forbidden, > therefore you need to hire a > lawyer who will issue the magic > incantations to make it legal. There's that straw man again. Jim, it's easy to defeat the arguments you dishonestly put into other peoples' mouths. Dealing with what they ACTUALLY said is a tougher row to hoe, isn't it? PLEASE keep me on your "loon list." It is a badge honor tantamount to being on Nixon's "enemies list." S a n d y From bogus@does.not.exist.com Sat Aug 4 09:39:00 2001 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:39:00 -0400 Subject: CodeRed Fix B In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20010803184843.0154af78@ct2.nai.net>; from Wilfred@Cryogen.com on Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 06:48:43PM -0400 References: <3.0.3.32.20010803184843.0154af78@ct2.nai.net> Message-ID: <20010804123900.A13409@positron.mit.edu> Wilfred L. Guerin wrote: > Can someone please prepare an instruction of how to set apache and other > servers up to route /*n.threat requests to a cgi/script/module/etc so we > can immediately release this remedy... Add the following lines to httpd.conf: Deny from all ErrorDocument 403 http://stable.host.foo/abuse-log.cgi Replace http://stable.host.foo/abuse-log.cgi with the abuse logger. Make sure to include the full URL in the ErrorDocument statement. From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 12:39:20 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:39:20 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BE4F8.16729.C8F0C3@localhost> Message-ID: VI2 wrote: > If Microsoft gets busted for > "spoilation" in their current > lawsuit, then I will take Sandy > and Black Unicorn off my loon > list. :-) If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" I'll buy James a new house. But if they get busted for spoliation I don't want to be taken off your loon list (and, I'm sure neither would Black Unicorn), it's too much of a good recommendation. By the by, who else is on your "loon list"? If Inchoate is there, I might want to rethink wanting to be there. :'D S a n d y From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 12:46:06 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:46:06 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BEB72.1730.E23F9C@localhost> Message-ID: Poor stupid James wrote: > If you are making claims about > what the law might become in > future, your qualifications for > undestanding laws and court > precedents are irrelevant. No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. You cannot identify a trend without examining history. This is not a touch concept; there is an almost exact analogy in studying mutations in diseases. (Insert Santayana quote here.) Are you just dull or simply afraid to back down when you are wrong? S a n d y From support at dvdsupercenter.com Sat Aug 4 13:00:52 2001 From: support at dvdsupercenter.com (DVD Supercenter) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:00:52 Subject: $3.99 DVD Starring Jenna Jameson Message-ID: <200108041710.KAA06879@toad.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 8635 bytes Desc: not available URL: From georgemw at speakeasy.net Sat Aug 4 13:04:40 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:04:40 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BD76E.26411.940FE0@localhost> References: <3B6AA57C.9.110CDEB@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6BF2E8.10248.E66971@localhost> On 4 Aug 2001, at 11:07, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > -- > On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:22, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge > > can legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order > > to enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is, > > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare to > > suggest that I should anticipate the possibility of a gag > > order and preemptively gag myslef in case one might be issued > > at a later date. > > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, lawyers will irrelevant, and will have been irrelevant for a long time before the such anyone attempts such crap. > I didn't mean to imply that BU had suggested that this would happen. My impression is that BU's response to me was based on a misundertanding of what I was saying. My suggestion "encrypt your data and post it on freenet" was based on the idea that 1) I want to be able to say with perfect truthfulness "I cannot comply with your order to turn over ALL copies" and 2) I don't want to release it to the whole world's prying inquisitive eyes. The key point is, I want to make sure I will always have access to my information. I wasn't suggesting I could delete all local copies and tell the judge, "sorry, can't give you any copies, don't have them" and mutter under my breath "but I could get them if I really wanted to". I wouldn't expect a judge to buy that line of reasoning, I wouldn't buy it myself. > These guys (Black Unicorn and his cheer squad) are loons, and I cannot imagine why they post such nonsense. > > The argument they seem to be making is that judges, legislators, and bureaucrats are becoming > increasingly lawless, therefore we should treat lawyers with >worshipful respect. I don't think this is right either. It's more like 1) Judges and prosecutors may interpret laws in ways that seem completely divergent from the laws as written, but at least these bizzare interpreations are internally consistent (that is, judges will follow precedent). 2) designing your systems in certain ways that take into account certain tortured interpretations of the law can potentially save you a lot of grief and 3) Lawyers will most likely know a lot more about these tortured interpretations than will non-lawyers. Really, I don't think this stuff is all that controversial. For example, the suggestion that your legal position is stronger if you can say "we've never had the logs you're asking for" than if you say "we delete those logs every 24 hours to keep the disk from filling up, so they're gone, sorry" makes perfect sense. This isn't to say your position isn't strong in the second case also, but there's more potential for grief; even a case that you win pretty quickly can cost you a lot in terms of money and inconenience. > James A. Donald George > From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 13:06:09 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:06:09 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6BE4F8.5854.C8F0CD@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6BF341.5212.100C043@localhost> -- On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:34, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > James Donald (VI2) can't seem to keep his people, arguments or > facts straight. He wrote: > > I understood black unicorn, and Sandy, to be claiming it > > [routine document destruction in the ordinary course of > > business] was inappropriate, and quite dangerous. Sandy Sandfort > Time to take that remedial reading course you've been putting > off, Jim. > > (a) You will find zero posts from me regarding this subject. > > (b) You will find zero posts from Black Unicorn taking the > extreme position you ascribe to him (and me). I just responded to a post by him where he took that extreme position -- you probably read that response just before this response. You, and Black Unicorn, have taken that extreme position. You were full of shit. You are now backing away from it, denying that you said what you so plainly said, demonstrating that you now realize you were full of shit, demonstrating you do not know shit from beans in that area of the law. Here is a fragment from the post that I just responded to: : : Harmon Seaver : : > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or : : > throw away all your reciepts, there's not jack they : : > can do about it. : : : : At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote: : : Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many : : posts on this point you'd see that about every one of : : the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the opposite of : : what you claim above. So Harmon Seaver says routine document destruction in the ordinary course of business is quite safe. Black Unicorn confidently, and quite untruthfully, claims the material he cited shows it to be unsafe. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG HvNOpCMeOLv0jpkCAbSlewClypASXflgllLCvOJF 4+tWcB5EBxQn+5gFKcz/qQgLnLReYcZknJGec2oqs From wmo at pro-ns.net Sat Aug 4 11:11:18 2001 From: wmo at pro-ns.net (Bill O'Hanlon) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:11:18 -0500 Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <20010804110510.A41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> Message-ID: <20010804131118.B41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:54:35AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 08:29:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > > Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if > > > they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the > > > contract. > > > > > > Contract? > > Explicit written (ie email) contract at that. > Sure. And I could find such a thing...where? It would seem that I ought to at least read such a thing, if I've supposedly agreed to it. -- Bill O'Hanlon wmo at pro-ns.net Professional Network Services, Inc. 612-379-3958 http://www.pro-ns.net From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 11:15:35 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:15:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3B6BD3A0.24582.8533BC@localhost> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > As governments become more lawless, and laws become mere desires of the > powerful, rather than any fixed set of rules, the state is increasing > less one powerful entity, rather it becomes numerous entities each with > their own conflicting desires. > > The danger is not that the US will turn into the Russia of the 1950s, but > merely that it will turn into the Russia of the 1990s, a far less > threatening prospect. Yowzer, we agree... The only significant long-term factor keeping this from happening even faster is the Chinese. It represents a consistent and 'universal' threat that motivates these splinter groups to unite in 'commen defence'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 13:20:24 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:20:24 -0700 Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Terranson wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > > > What we've found is that if you treat > > your readers with respect they'll give > > it to you, even send you stuff you'd > > never see otherwise. That is, > > Obviously you don't deal with the likes > of Sandfort... Your personal animus is showing again, Jimmy. Actually, John and I have interacted--sometimes in agreement and sometimes not. I won't speak for John, but I still have the utmost respect for him--even when I disagree with him or he pisses me off. You, on the other hand... Well, let's just say, you're no John Young. S a n d y From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 11:23:35 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:23:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: <200108041753.NAA23502@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > Some of the titles of URLs you offer appear interesting. Could you > include a paragraph or two for each? Say, at least as much text > as the skull clutter of your headers and sig. I won't include text of the original articles, no. I no longer even include partial quotes in my discussion (and cut them out of anything I reply to usually). If I have something to say specific to their topics I include it. I try to make sure the titles give some clear description of what the article is about (I try to use the original titles but sometimes that doesn't work). Outside of that I'm sticking with the URL's themselves. I'll do my best to make sure they are topical and interesting, that's the best I can promise. Consider it 'minimalist performance art directed at political protest'. And yes, I understand it pisses some off. Imagine how pissed off I am at being reduced to this level of communications 'for the children'... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 11:28:46 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:28:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: <20010804131118.B41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > Sure. And I could find such a thing...where? > > It would seem that I ought to at least read such a thing, if I've > supposedly agreed to it. Check the email you and I exchanged when pro-dns.net was put on the SSZ backbone feed. You agreed to not filter the backbone mail. If you want to change that policy feel free, I'll drop your feed and place a 'not a nice player' notice next to the pro-dns.net node on the SSZ homepage. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 13:37:44 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:37:44 -0700 Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: See, we can reach consensus on Cypherpunks! ;'D > -----Original Message----- > From: measl at mfn.org [mailto:measl at mfn.org] > Sent: 04 August, 2001 13:31 > To: Sandy Sandfort > Cc: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: RE: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows > > > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > Terranson wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > > > > > > > What we've found is that if you treat > > > > your readers with respect they'll give > > > > it to you, even send you stuff you'd > > > > never see otherwise. That is, > > > > > > Obviously you don't deal with the likes > > > of Sandfort... > > > > Your personal animus is showing again, Jimmy. > > > > Actually, John and I have interacted--sometimes in agreement > and sometimes > > not. I won't speak for John, but I still have the utmost respect for > > him--even when I disagree with him or he pisses me off. > > > > You, on the other hand... Well, let's just say, you're no John Young. > > > > > > S a n d y > > To be held in low regard by you is a badge of honor Sandfort. I will > treasure it always. > > -- > Yours, > J.A. Terranson > sysadmin at mfn.org > > If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they > should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: > Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of > unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in > the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and > elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire > populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... > This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States > as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. > > The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, > associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of > those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the > first place... > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From cashzino at 9roce55.com Sat Aug 4 13:49:18 2001 From: cashzino at 9roce55.com (Profits) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:49:18 Subject: Your Turn 2 Profit! Message-ID: <200108041845.LAA32106@ecotone.toad.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cashzino at 9roce55.com Sat Aug 4 13:49:19 2001 From: cashzino at 9roce55.com (Profits) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:49:19 Subject: Your Turn 2 Profit! Message-ID: <200108041856.NAA29147@einstein.ssz.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cashzino at 9roce55.com Sat Aug 4 13:49:48 2001 From: cashzino at 9roce55.com (Profits) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:49:48 Subject: Your Turn 2 Profit! Message-ID: <200108042140.f74LeSJ10514@rigel.cyberpass.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 590 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 4 13:53:46 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 13:53:46 -0700 Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: <3B6C2B17.A21E1430@ssz.com> Message-ID: <200108041753.NAA23502@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Jim, Some of the titles of URLs you offer appear interesting. Could you include a paragraph or two for each? Say, at least as much text as the skull clutter of your headers and sig. From unicorn at schloss.li Sat Aug 4 14:22:54 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:22:54 -0700 Subject: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3B6BD76E.26411.940FE0@localhost> Message-ID: <00ad01c11d2b$a02f53e0$d2972040@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:07 AM Subject: Re: Spoliation cites > On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:22, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > > > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge > > can legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order > > to enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is, > > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare to > > suggest that I should anticipate the possibility of a gag > > order and preemptively gag myslef in case one might be issued > > at a later date. jamesd at echeque.com replies: > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, lawyers will irrelevant, and will have been irrelevant for a long time before the such anyone attempts such crap. > > These guys (Black Unicorn and his cheer squad) are loons, and I cannot imagine why they post such nonsense. The only thing that is more surprising than your total willful ignorance (have you even bothered to look at the several cites I have posted that positively refute your statement above?) is the fact that you keep insisting on demonstrating it- loudly. (I have no clue where this pre-emptive self-gagging discussion came from. That does sound silly indeed). It's like being in the dark ages or something. Clearly presented evidence, ignored as heretical and the purveyors of it burned (flamed?) at the stake. It's a wonder anyone bothers to impart any knowledge of worth to the list at all. I have cited authority for the proposition that courts, and more often plaintiffs, routinely demand broad productions related to a given matter. Many here have attempted to assign sinister motives to these production orders (censorship, seizure of private property, etc.) In reality they are generally directed to the very legitimate aim, given you accept the court's authority in the first place- which is another discussion entirely better directed to your legislative representative, of preserving evidence so that the parties may reach "the truth" and resolve their dispute. (This is, incidentally, the same rationale that gave rise to "no-knock" searches- which should be a demonstration of how seriously the need to preserve evidence is taken among law enforcement and judiciary types). In my personal legal work some years ago I can think of several instances in which a copy of a record has increased or reduced the probative value of an original- and have used them to refute or support claims and allegations in cases myself. Courts defendants and plaintiffs know this also and that's why production orders are so broadly written- and enforced. I am hardly the only example. In a mere 90 minutes of work I found and I have cited at least 5 major cases (which in turn would lead even the first quartile legal researcher to dozens and dozens more) that show that the burden of these productions may- and does- fall on third parties and that malicious, or indeed even negligent, loss or destruction of these documents could result in anything from a stern lecture, to unfavorable jury instructions, to sanctions to jail time. We have had at least two remailer operators called to stand before "the man," despite the fact that they were not otherwise a party to a lawsuit of any kind. At least one who has disclosed his/her experience about it on the list. One defense "I don't keep logs and therefore don't have any to give you" was sufficient this time. Good. But those were copyright or libel issues before DMCA was the big deal it is now. The stakes are higher now, as certain anti-Adobe authors might tell you. It only takes a big drug case or a murder investigation and a third party remailer operator is probably going to be the subject of a lot more heat. Want to wait around for that hurricane before you take a few simple precautions? That's just dense. But be my guest. We might all just use DES because no cypherpunk has been arrested for an incident where DES was decrypted to obtain the evidence. (It hasn't happened yet, so what's the problem, right?) I prefer to use AES, thanks. I also don't buy land in flood prone areas without insurance. I have cited authorities. I have cited examples. I have given you the tools to find these and read them. Either demonstrate why these do not apply drawing directly from their text (it's freely available to anyone who would look) or no one here can take you seriously unless they have an ulterior motive for doing so. The fact that you don't think courts should exist in their current state, and that you proclaim so loudly and endlessly, is not going to help you when you are standing in court with U.S. Marshals or State Bailiffs at your side. (Ask Jim Bell about how well taunting a court works). The cure for your ignorance is simple. Just find any document production order at all. I can pretty much assure you the language will contain "all documents, copies, reproductions" and suchlike in it and the court will seek to enforce it. The light switch is right at your fingertips. You have but to flip it up and cease to continue living in the darkness- if you so desire. I accept that you might be beyond hope. I hope other's aren't. Do you own homework. Anything else is intellectual laziness at it's finest. From wmo at rebma.pro-ns.net Sat Aug 4 12:23:55 2001 From: wmo at rebma.pro-ns.net (Bill O'Hanlon) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:23:55 -0500 Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: <20010804120034.A4348@slack.lne.com> References: <20010804010725.C30609@cluebot.com> <20010804120034.A4348@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010804142355.C41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:00:34PM -0700, Eric Murray wrote: > > I've also found the source of the wrapped Message-Ids and I'll > be fixing it soon. > > > Eric > That's good news. The duplicated messages were confusing. -Bill From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 14:54:47 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:54:47 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites Message-ID: Jimbo II wrote: > You, and Black Unicorn, have taken that > extreme position. You were full of shit. Show me where I took that position. Put up or shut up, Jimbo II. > You are now backing away from it, > denying that you said what you > so plainly said... Just quote me directly, Jimbo II. Either hang me by my own words or sign up for that remedial reading course. Can't do it can you? > Here is a fragment from the post > that I just responded to: > : : At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, > : : Black Unicorn wrote:... Where are MY words that I "so plainly said"? Put up or shut up Jimbo II. I am confident that you have searched the postings and know that I didn't say any thing of the sort. You are wrong. Be a mensch and admit it. Coward. S a n d y From unicorn at schloss.li Sat Aug 4 14:57:05 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:57:05 -0700 Subject: EPMs, private enforcement, copyright, ouch. Was: Re: Regulation of Mixes under Postal Laws? References: <20010804104703.A20864@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <00b701c11d30$66b18430$d2972040@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" To: Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:06 AM Subject: Regulation of Mixes under Postal Laws? > (Title changed to reflect focus.) > > At 10:47 AM -0400 8/4/01, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: > >> I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA > >> (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in the United > >> States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it. > > > >I'm not sure if much can be gained by comparing anonymous remailers > >to commercial mail drops. USPS is a strange and weird beast, and guards > >its territory ferociously. Activities that happen in its sphere are > >logically and legally distinct from those happening online. Mr. May replies: > A "remailer" uses the term "mail" in it because "e-mail" is the > obvious term we have been using for about 20 years now. Obviously > e-mail can consist of all sorts of messages, including "instant > messaging," messages picked up at POP sites, and Web-based messaging. > Their is no bright line between "e-mail" and "chat" and "voice > communications" and "article posts." > > I am unaware of any solid legislation (tested in the courts) > attempting to regulate e-mail in the same way ordinary USPS and > international mail is regulated. Certainly there are no postage > requirements. The only thing that comes to mind is the post office's "Electronic Postmark" which, if you affix to an email, puts the same legal effects and protections (e.g. mail fraud) on tampering and handling that document as first class mail enjoys. Admittedly this is a far stretch from the Post Office having any real regulatory authority over non-EPM'd email, but it's an interesting aside. > The "anti-spam" rules > are close to telephone dialing and fax machine rules than they are to > USPS junk mail rules (such as they are). Given the weekly state of my mailbox I am very pleased the USPS has nothing to do with spam control. > It's not just a matter of "toilet plunger" and "The Court is not > amused" ("Please don't make Mr. Happy Fun Court angry!") sorts of "Don't taunt happy-fun-court." I think you mean. > (Note that neither Paladin Press nor Loompanics Press were ever shut > down or enjoined from distributing the assassination manuals they > used to sell. A civil suit and damages caused the titles to be > pulled, but not a judge or regulatory body.) Well, true, but 1. what's the difference if the end effect is the same and 2. as I think the recent Adobe/E-Book silliness demonstrates- those kinds of cases are going to see quite a lot of exposure now. Ashcroft just hired dozens of new "cyber-prosecutors" and it's apparently going to be the Swan Song he hitches on to in order to propel his career- I suspect. (Shades of Microsoft/Bush mutual-fellatiating aside). > If "The Progressive" is free from interference in how it chooses to > publish H-bomb secrets, does even Aimee think a site which collects > together submissions and publishes them is going to be regulated? Yet we see sites shut down monthly based on "cease and desist" orders and I think this is the point. The line between government enforcement and private enforcement is increasingly blurred (even gone) in a world where government has realized it can no longer afford to enforce and prosecute these things. Today Lawrence Livermore would have just hit the Progressive with a copyright suit and easily gotten an injunction. If they had put the H-bomb secrets in an E-book then they'd arrest key people at the Progressive and they might still be floating around the federal system wondering what happened. (I think it was Mr. May who cited the Xerox example- possibly quoting someone else. Same thing here). Anything from putting reporting and recordkeeping requirements and costs on financial institutions and brokerages (for later ease of investigation), the CTRs everyone has to fill out now (at their own expense) to privately originated criminal actions under DMCA, Environmental Protection Act, Antitrust and etc. etc. makes the distinction between private and public enforcement increasingly meaningless. This is concerning. What difference does it make if a controversial site is shut down by Mr. London as a prosecutor or by the Church of Scientology? Free speech is hindered the same in either case. Very worrisome. This more than any other reason is why I hope that remailer operators will exercise caution (NOT pre-emptively shut down, as some have alleged I intend them to do). I think it's pretty clear that free speech is besieged by forces under the banner of private property rights, funded by a chest of corporate gold (Adobe, MPAA, etc.) with entirely different interests- none of which have much to do with free (or $ free) speech. Copyright is dangerous today because it is near its deathbed and yet so many fat profit models depend on it. Do you think MPAA or RIAA are spending the kind of cash they are because they feel safely ensconced? Do you doubt that for every dollar spent on the Napster case there aren't 2 or 3 spent in lobbying, both overtly and in backchannel ways? (Ashcroft's announcements of late should pretty much remove any doubt that the Bush administration's ear has been bent by the Adobe's of the world). Looking at this trend: 1. Private enforcement actions with a government, not just a plaintiff, stick. 2. Increasing influence of industry groups and corporations in defining the medium and content of speech. (Microsoft XP, Adobe, MPAA, MPEG-4, ATA). 3. Criminal elements to otherwise entirely civil issues. 4. An increasing political will to enforce these elements by arresting 20somethings and threatening researchers. 5. "Credentialing" requirements, official or in effect- of which Mr. May has often mused. I think it's time to be just as defensive about resisting compelled disclosure orders (and making such orders obsolete) as it was to use IDEA instead of DES back in PGP 1.0. > And no lawyer would argue that Congressional regulation/ownership of > some aspects of paper mail delivery then grants Congressional control > of publishing, chat rooms, postings to Usenet and Web forums, and > machine-to-machine connections. Unless an EPM is attached. Perhaps that's the dangerous hook, no? Granted there is no EPM _requirement_ today for email, nor can I see how one might emerge, but several brokerages are in the process of implementing EPMs for statement, pay stub and trade confirmation delivery as we speak. AT&T has started floating trial balloons about sending your statement by paper only if you pay an extra fee, and doing the rest electronically. Wouldn't take much to see EPMs on all your phone bills before long (particularly if the post office gets clever and tells congress it needs some regulatory correspondence- say with the SEC as a starting point, to require EPMs in order to stay in business - or it will have to raise postage instead). Bingo, EPMs for everyone! At least, if I were USPS that's how I would start to try and build an EPM monopoly. Interesting times, if nothing else. From unicorn at schloss.li Sat Aug 4 14:58:33 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:58:33 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites References: <3B6A73E8.17070.708BD1@localhost> <3B6BE4F8.16729.C8F0C3@localhost> Message-ID: <00c001c11d30$9b75aa20$d2972040@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: RE: Spoliation cites > On 3 Aug 2001, at 13:53, David Honig wrote: > > After MS was busted, it was widely publicized that it was thereafter > > official policy to destroy email after N days. As if Ollie et al. wasn't > > enough. > > If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" in their current lawsuit, then > I will take Sandy and Black Unicorn off my loon list. :-) In keeping with my new theory about "Perfect Anti-Credibility" I prefer to stay on your loon list, thanks. From measl at mfn.org Sat Aug 4 13:04:31 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:04:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: <200108041925.PAA06210@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > What we've found is that if you treat your readers with respect they'll > give it to you, even send you stuff you'd never see otherwise. That is, Obviously you don't deal with the likes of Sandfort... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Sat Aug 4 00:11:43 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:11:43 +0800 Subject: Book1 Message-ID: <200108041006.f74A6qJ24878@rigel.cyberpass.net> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Book1.xls.com Type: application/mixed Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Sat Aug 4 00:12:48 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:12:48 +0800 Subject: Book1 Message-ID: <200108040811.DAA22963@einstein.ssz.com> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Book1.xls.com Type: application/mixed Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 4 15:26:01 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 15:26:01 -0700 Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: References: <200108041753.NAA23502@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108041925.PAA06210@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Jim, I appreciate your resistance. Still, our experience on Cryptome with offering only URLs indicates that they are little used unless there's a taste of what is worth going to see. No doubt that it would be easiest to give only URLs and let the lazy bastards graze readers-digest crap elsewhere. But it's not the deadheads we'd like to swap info with, for they never give back enough to make it worthwhile -- usually the shits just send more URLs without explanation as if we can read their profound thoughts. What we've found is that if you treat your readers with respect they'll give it to you, even send you stuff you'd never see otherwise. That is, they'll inform you and educate you in ways you can't do alone, though that shared experience isn't for everyone, I'll grant you, in particular when you want only to talk and preach and not listen and learn. So we've found that the better we make our samples the more likely readers will figure we're offering something worth reading, and if they like it they'll eventually return the favor, and if we're lucky we get better than we offer -- indeed, that is always the case: the best stuff comes in from folks who figure they'd like to take part in a mutually rewarding situation, as we see on cypherpunks. URLs alone send a message of laziness, contempt, cluelessness about the benefits of communication as against dancing castaway on an island. For that solo shit you don't need CDR, the Net, the world, or think you don't until the radio farts coming from your ass are only cancer static. From measl at mfn.org Sat Aug 4 13:31:04 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:31:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Terranson wrote: > > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > > > > > What we've found is that if you treat > > > your readers with respect they'll give > > > it to you, even send you stuff you'd > > > never see otherwise. That is, > > > > Obviously you don't deal with the likes > > of Sandfort... > > Your personal animus is showing again, Jimmy. > > Actually, John and I have interacted--sometimes in agreement and sometimes > not. I won't speak for John, but I still have the utmost respect for > him--even when I disagree with him or he pisses me off. > > You, on the other hand... Well, let's just say, you're no John Young. > > > S a n d y To be held in low regard by you is a badge of honor Sandfort. I will treasure it always. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 15:46:26 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:46:26 -0700 Subject: CANARYPUNKS Message-ID: C'punks, I've just had a flash of insight into the purpose that Village Idiots I-III, and Jim Bell serve. (Tim May is a special care which I'll treat separately, below.) The are all coal mine canaries. When they succumb, the rest of us know it's time to get out of the mine (lower our profile) for a while. Of course, real mine canaries have no choice. Given a choice, I think they'd opt to stay top-side. OUR canarypunks, no matter what the miners say, loudly proclaim that the miners are full of shit about all this hypothetical hypoxia and poison gas as they march right into the adit. Those who were on the list at the time will remember how Jim Bell pooh-poohed every warning that I and others gave him. He knew the law better, he was smarter than the FBI, he had "a solution," the Constitution was on his side, etc. EVERYTHING I said came true, NOTHING he said did. Live and learn (or don't). Think of it as evolution in action. As I said, Tim May is a special case. Unlike Jim Bell (damn lot of "Jims," if you ask me) and the Three Stooges, Tim's ideas and opinions actually bring value (other than just canary value) to the list. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, Tim is also a canarypunk. For what it's worth, I think the chances of Tim's life ending in a hail of federales' bullets is less than 50%, but still significant. I'll miss his contributions if and when he commits blue suicide. So what does all this mean? Well, since a word to the wise is sufficient, I think I'll stop working so hard to get the Three Stooges to act in their own best interest. I'll make whatever warnings I think are appropriate so that the folks with a clue will have whatever benefit they wish to derive from it. If the Three Stooges choose to ignore good advice from me and others, well, so be it. I'm glad to have their voluntary contribution to the rest of us in their roles of canarypunks. S a n d y From wmo at pro-ns.net Sat Aug 4 13:57:26 2001 From: wmo at pro-ns.net (Bill O'Hanlon) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:57:26 -0500 Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <20010804131118.B41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> Message-ID: <20010804155726.D41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:28:46PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > > > Sure. And I could find such a thing...where? > > > > It would seem that I ought to at least read such a thing, if I've > > supposedly agreed to it. > > Check the email you and I exchanged when pro-dns.net was put on the SSZ > backbone feed. You agreed to not filter the backbone mail. If you want to > change that policy feel free, I'll drop your feed and place a 'not a nice > player' notice next to the pro-dns.net node on the SSZ homepage. > I looked, and I can't find the mail we exchanged, though I do remember exchanging mail at the time. Spell out what it is that you think we've agreed to, and I'll report back with how well I intend to comply, and you can decide what you want to put on your homepage. Or not, as you wish. If it helps, my thoughts on how things should work are in pretty close alignment with Eric's, and my node is now running his code. (Eric has done a nice job of making Majordomo pass only messages from subscribers to one of the CDRs, plus known remailers. His work also makes it easy to scan a bunch of messages looking for mail that didn't make it and add the message and the user to the node. The list is substantially more readable as a result, as many others have remarked.) -Bill -- Bill O'Hanlon wmo at pro-ns.net Professional Network Services, Inc. 612-379-3958 http://www.pro-ns.net From unicorn at schloss.li Sat Aug 4 16:08:07 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:08:07 -0700 Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. Message-ID: <00f801c11d3a$52f0dc70$d2972040@thinkpad574> I am going to try and be as clear and as slow as possible- knowing full well that it probably will make no difference and that my words will be twisted, strawmaned, touted or defamed whatever I do. Regardless: Hirsch v. General Motors, 628 A.2d 1108 (1993) effectively opens the door for third parties to be cited for spoliation of documents or evidence for actions, potentially and reasonably performed in good faith, before any proceeding or legal action begins or is even threatened. Again, this was a products liability case. Couple buys a car. The car catches fire. People are hurt. Car is resold to the dealer. The dealer refurbishes the car. The dealer sells the car to a third party in a cash or near cash transaction. Plaintiffs, much later, sue GM, the car's manufacturer, and the dealer. In a typical discovery order the dealer is ordered to produce the car and all records associated with it. The dealer insists it cannot. It has, it claims, in good faith, sold the refurbished car to a third party. Court demands records of the sale to identify the third party, seize the car, and use it as evidence. (Note that this harmless third party, who had nothing to do with this case, had they been identified, would have had their car seized and impounded for who knows how long, while it was evidence in this case, despite the fact that they had no idea the car would have been subject to suit, or any other action). Plaintiffs sue for spoliation of evidence, move for court sanctions against dealer and GM. Dealer protests that their standard business practice to refurbish and sell cars. Further dealer protests that they routinely have cash transactions with few or little identifying records of the end parties. (The "normal course of business defense"). Effectively, this isn't even "destroying" records, but not keeping them. The trial court permits the plaintiffs to sue for spoliation, mostly on the basis of the disposition of the car, not the papers or lack of records, although those are mentioned, and orders sanctions (a fine and costs) against the plaintiffs. Case goes to appeal where defendants make the argument that the papers, car and other evidence were not the subject of a suit or pending suit and that they were acting in the normal course of business. The ruling by trial court is upheld. Summarizing: 1. Third parties can expect that, good faith or total ignorance aside, their private property can be seized if it, through no conduct of their own, becomes the subject of a dispute. 2. The "normal course of business" is not an absolutely defense in a case of spoliation. 3. Actions which destroy or "lose" evidence and that are performed before any case, action, threat of action or summons can still constitute spoliation. Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc., 40 Cal.App.4th 892 (1995). In the normal course of business, consistent with policy and _under the advice of counsel_ defendant manufacturer destroys all internal records (along with other unrelated documents) on the design for a tractor. Some time later (years) one such tractor results in an injury and becomes the subject of a products liability suit. Plaintiffs request the production of all documents related to the tractor design. Defendant protests that these were destroyed a decade ago, on the advice of counsel. Plaintiff's move for sanctions and sue for spoliation of evidence. Trial court imposes sanctions, assesses costs to plaintiffs, turns court record over to plaintiffs in anticipation of their suit in tort for spoliation against defendant and refers the case to the local prosecutor with the recommendation that a case for criminal obstruction be brought. (Some notes in the trial record suggest that judge and defense counsel didn't exactly get along well). Hundreds of thousands of dollars and several years later in appeal the assignment of court costs are overturned on the basis that defendant was acting in something like good faith because they sought and followed advice of counsel on their document destruction policy and the destroyed records were thought for some reason to be of minimal value. Near as I can tell the record of criminal obstruction charge was sealed and doesn't seem to have been disposed of. The rest of the sanctions and fines stood. The case for spoliation was settled but some undisclosed payment was made to plaintiffs in that case. Summarizing: 1. Document destruction policies for a company which are instituted on the advice of legal counsel might get you out of court costs- after hundreds of thousands of dollars in appeals. Sanctions and suit in tort for spoliation will be permitted to go forward anyhow. 2. Pissing off the trial court judge (do not taunt happy-fun-court) is a bad idea when simultaneously telling the court you won't (can't) give them what they ask for, unless you like criminal sanctions. (Larry Flint would be another good example of the consequences of being an insufferable bastard or having a deep rooted psychological problem with authority when dealing with a court- sure you might win, but enjoy the lockup for a while in the meantime). 3. Again, the fact that you had no idea the records might some day be part of a lawsuit or action means nothing. If you destroy them, you might get burned regardless. I submit that the facts of these two cases, along with some of the others I've cited and the FRCP among other statutes, suggest that it's not much of a stretch for a remailer operator to find him or herself in the midst of a spoliation dispute- all technical distinctions between remailers and document destruction policies aside. Add the intent discussion in Lopez and only an idiot is going to be careless about operating a remailer. I'm not going to go over them all again. Go read some books. I submit further that a remailer operator would do themselves quite a lot of favors if they put themselves in a position to look squeaky clean in front of a judge if and when this happens. We have real life-real cypherpunk examples that this works. It is clearly necessary, however to improve on this. This is because: I submit that the very operation of a remailer meets the textbook definition of "spoliation" or "destruction" of evidence just intrinsic to its design and that its primary purpose is this exact function. I submit that courts are not going to be dissuaded from this obvious conclusion without a nice, clean, young, innocent, harmless looking defendant who is well behaved in front of them pleading impossibility, and maybe not even then. Even in that case there are years and years of archives (read evidence) of discussions from this list and others demonstrating that remailers were designed and perfected with precisely the intent of destroying potential evidence. I would further point out that the "it's just a file trading service, we can't help what our users do" defense was an utter failure in the Napster case and that's pretty much _exactly_ what a remailer operator is going to be saying. Courts are not always as stupid as we'd like them to be. Court's are not always as smart as we would like them to be. The trick is getting these two mental states timed well. I would add that the court in the Napster case specifically brought up the point that Napster, while a file trading service also, was clearly designed with the knowledge, if not the desire and intent, that it would be used to exchange/steal/pirate copyrighted works. The fact that it was a "dual use" technology made no difference and Napster is slowly twisting in the wind/dead because of it. Why, in the face of this, anyone would fail to see the patently obvious parallel to remailers is somewhat beyond me. Finally: As to the question of Microsoft being pinched for destroying evidence- which someone touted as having never happened without having bothered to look at any of the case file on the MS antitrust trial as an example that the sky is actually purple, MS was _twice_ cited for obstruction, three motions were made for sanctions by the prosecution and in one of those the judge actually threatened sanctions (which resulted in the eventual production of the 'missing' documents, electronic in this case. Further, instructions in the case eventually included the allowable inference that MS maliciously destroyed evidence useful to the prosecution. My only regret in pointing this out is that I think Mr. Sandfort might owe someone a house. (I note he never put a dollar figure on the house bet though). I grow tired of trying to convince religious fanatics that the world is pear shaped. If anyone not a part of my new killfile additions has anything actually useful to contribute wake me up and I'll probably comment. Some unnamed cypherpunk who doesn't want to be later cited for legal malpractice might write up a set of theoretical legal remailer operator guidelines and post it anonymously to the list in the next few weeks. We'll see. From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 14:17:37 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:17:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 10'th Anniversary Message-ID: What would be the 'official' crank-up date on the Cypherpunks mailing list in 1992? Time for a 10 year anniversary. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 16:31:50 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:31:50 -0700 Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Malpractice Stooge wrote: > A verbal agreement between two > parties that dictate how they > will relate to each other is a > contract. Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) or it violates the Statute of Frauds or similar rules (you know about the Statute of Frauds and similar rules, don't you Jimbo?) or violates some public policy (you know about those public policy concepts don't you Jimbo?). Any failure along these lines would render such a verbal "agreement" unenforceable in contract. S a n d y From unicorn at schloss.li Sat Aug 4 16:32:33 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:32:33 -0700 Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. References: <00f801c11d3a$52f0dc70$d2972040@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <011c01c11d3d$bd2ae4c0$d2972040@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Black Unicorn" To: Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:08 PM Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. > The trial court > permits the plaintiffs to sue for spoliation, mostly on the basis of the > disposition of the car, not the papers or lack of records, although those are > mentioned, and orders sanctions (a fine and costs) against the plaintiffs. This should read: "against the defendants." Sorry. From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 4 16:35:47 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 16:35:47 -0700 Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: References: <200108041925.PAA06210@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108042035.QAA16819@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> >Obviously you don't deal with the likes of Sandfort... Well, I missed the golden days of alleged army-grade mules here, but since summer 94 there's been nobody posting to cpunks who was intolerable all the time or tolerable all the time either. There are fewer tolerable than intolerable but that's the nature of this sulphurous waterhole. You drink here and you go nuts, thinking you got smarter than the others, feel the urge to shape up the fools. You got to expect that the longer you read this list the more your mind and ethics degrade. But that's better than those lists where the opposite is futilely promised. The best lists go downhill without end, abandon all attempts to improve themselves, accept scum that remain -- all too human. Barroom brawling produces no winners only scars and cauliflowers. Gentlepersons just watch and tut-tut in lengthy essays on what the world is descending to, then vote for more regulation and policing for everyone except them and their vile secret practices. Too late to be an outsider, hanging above the fray like an angel, that option disappeared with the compulsive need for appreciation, the snake bit the angel overdosing on conceit of knowledge. Omniscient God hates his adoring children knowing the suck-ups thoroughly as chips off. One of the godly features of this Styx is the violent reaction against manipulative praise, especially if it is not aimed at your proffered graven image. You want to screw someone here just tell them how much you appreciate their contributions. Lie. From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 16:44:31 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:44:31 -0700 Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. In-Reply-To: <00f801c11d3a$52f0dc70$d2972040@thinkpad574> Message-ID: Black Unicorn wrote: [masterful summation elided] > My only regret in pointing this > out is that I think Mr. Sandfort > might owe someone a house. (I > note he never put a dollar figure > on the house bet though). My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration) was only valid if Microsoft got nicked for--in Jimbo II's words--"spoilation." There being no such legal concept, I feel confident that I won't be giving him a house any time soon. :'D S a n d y From unicorn at schloss.li Sat Aug 4 16:51:47 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:51:47 -0700 Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. References: Message-ID: <012f01c11d40$6cfcbde0$d2972040@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandy Sandfort" To: Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:44 PM Subject: RE: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. > Black Unicorn wrote: > > [masterful summation elided] > > > My only regret in pointing this > > out is that I think Mr. Sandfort > > might owe someone a house. (I > > note he never put a dollar figure > > on the house bet though). > > My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration) Not to mention the statute of frauds (as it was a transaction in real estate). From a3495 at cotse.com Sat Aug 4 14:04:13 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond Message-ID: Faustine wrote: Dr. Evil wrote: >> Not safe at all, even the unclassified programs are getting better all >> the time. Check the archives for some interesting past >> discussion--and if you feel like tinkering around yourself, there's a >> ton of free software you can download here: >> http://www.content-analysis.de/software.html > Very interesting! I wonder if it is possible to learn to write in > other "linguistic fingerprints"? I'll have to look into this. Part of the problem is that in order to do that you'd need to change the subjects, sub-subjects and themes you like to talk about, period-- because "fingerprint" goes a lot deeper than word frequency. Even pure code has a discernable "fingerprint" of sorts. It's a losing proposition. > Are there any such programs that are free and run under Linux? I'l bet there are, I just can't remember any off the top of my head. If you root through the links, I'm sure something interesting will turn up. And if you have access to a Windows box at all you could always disassemble a sample program you like and rewrite it under your own platform. I'd rather get in there and improve it than use it straight out-of-the-box anyway. >>More interesting by far would be to write software that sanitized the >>text. Learning to write with a *different* fingerprint should be easy. Not as easy as you might think: even a causal reader familiar with these analytic techniques knows how to spot a faked style--and if you're the only person in the group who takes a real interest in a certain cluster of subjects, how hard is it going to be to pin the nym to you, if you've already written a body of posts to compare it with? I've been told the FBI uses technology that would knock your socks off. I bet they had a lot of fun tracking down Hanssen's other usenet nyms...not a bad test case for the hobbyist, actually. Faking a style might be good for short messages and the like, but participating in a discussion group for a length of time? Forget it. Unless you're willing to put some serious work into creating a totally distinct persona, you're wasting your time. This might seem a little unorthodox, but if you're really intent on it, a couple of classics which could help are "Building a Character" and "Creating a Role" by Constantine Stanislavski. No need to re-invent the wheel... ~Faustine. From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 17:33:28 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:33:28 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6BEB72.1730.E23F9C@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6C31E8.20796.1F57AF9@localhost> -- On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes > educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are > NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents. In any case, you are backpeddling like mad. Having dug yourself into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of existing laws and courts precedents is none too hot. What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into something like your original claim. How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i 4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86 From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 17:33:28 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:33:28 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BF2E8.10248.E66971@localhost> References: <3B6BD76E.26411.940FE0@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6C31E8.23884.1F57AF9@localhost> On 4 Aug 2001, at 13:04, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > My impression is that BU's response to me was based on a > misundertanding of what I was saying. My impression is that whatever his original position, in the course of defending it, he made claims that were ever more unreasonable, ever more flagrantly wrong, and defended those ever more obviously erroneous claims by asserting the vast superiority of lawyers, and our vital need for lawyers, in an ever more condescending fashion. If judges behave as lawlessly as BU would up claiming they did, we have no need for lawyers at all. If judges are going to behave as lawlessly as Sandy now says he was predicting they will, we will have no need for lawyers at all. As for what Aimee is saying -- that was not very clear, and the more she says, the less clear it is. From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 15:40:10 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 17:40:10 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Sklyarov Bail Hearing Monday Message-ID: <3B6C79CA.800651DD@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/04/2150240.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 4 15:53:01 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:53:01 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BEB72.23584.E23FA6@localhost> Message-ID: James wrote: > Harmon Seaver > > > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all > > > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it. > > At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote: > > Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point > > you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here > say exactly the > > opposite of what you claim above. > > A couple of posts ago Aimee confidently declared that none of the > people presenting themselves as lawyers on this list had made the > claim that you just made again. Read the definition of ordinary course of business - it implies good faith by nature. You seem to think ordinary course of business means "shred away!" Bzzt. Read Lewy. Lewy says you can't hide behind a policy and destroy documents you KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN might be relevant in future litigation - before you are served with suit or a preservation order. Yes, courts are likely to differ in their application based on the unique facts. However, if your ordinary course of business is to destroy or make unavailable of records in specific anticipation of a law suit or criminal complaint, you are probably not going to meet the good faith requirement. The court has some room to reach here, and they increasingly have the authority to do so. Whether they will be successful or not, I cannot say. > She is backpeddling, because it has become obvious your claim is > nonsense, and the fact that you made it, (and perhaps she made it > also before denying that she or anyone else had made it) shows > you do not know shit from beans. No, Sandfort, Unicorn and I are in agreement. > > So, unicorn, when are they going to bust microsoft for suddenly > enforcing a policy of purging old email? No, nobody has said that. It is pursuant to a written good faith retention policy. Looking behind the veil the courts will likely see bona-fide good faith. You see an all-or-none proposition, when we are looking at the finer points within a range of hypotheticals. Stop putting words in our mouths. ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 4 15:53:14 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:53:14 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6BE4F8.5854.C8F0CD@localhost> Message-ID: James wrote: -- > Black Unicorn's argument seemed to be "Everything is forbidden, > therefore you need to hire a lawyer who will issue the magic > incantations to make it legal. Sadly, that is A DAMN FACT. > This is nonsense on two counts: > > 1. Not everything is forbidden. While everything is not forbidden, there is always a way to work the forbidden into what is not forbidden, and clients usually find it. > 2. If everything is forbidden, then lawyers have no magic incantations. That is a DAMN LIE. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all our other sources are nothing more than state-endorsed books of shadows. Furthermore, we have magic wands. It doesn't work unless you believe, you know.... ~Aimee From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 18:00:34 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:00:34 -0700 Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jimbo I wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract > > (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) > > 1. Capacity of the parties. > > 2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meeting of the minds (a valid offer and > acceptance) > > 3. Consideration (somethingof value given in exchange for a promise) > > 4. Legality of subject matter. > > > or it violates the Statute of Frauds or similar rules (you know > about the > > Statute of Frauds and similar rules, don't you Jimbo?) > > Yep, but do your own research. > > > or violates some public policy (you know about those public > policy concepts > > don't you Jimbo?). > > Yep, see above. > > > Any failure along these lines would render such a verbal "agreement" > > unenforceable in contract. > > And not a one applies here. Perhaps, though that was not my intent. Just wanted to see if you'd jump through the hoops after the fact and pretend you knew that stuff up front. As it is, I can only give you a "C." Not too bad, really, better than I would have guessed. S a n d y From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 16:15:07 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:15:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > Read the definition of ordinary course of business - it implies good faith > by nature. You seem to think ordinary course of business means "shred away!" > Bzzt. Read Lewy. Lewy says you can't hide behind a policy and destroy > documents you KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN might be relevant in future > litigation - before you are served with suit or a preservation order. Yes, > courts are likely to differ in their application based on the unique facts. > However, if your ordinary course of business is to destroy or make > unavailable of records in specific anticipation of a law suit or criminal > complaint, you are probably not going to meet the good faith requirement. You fail to see the distinction. Lewy speaks to SPECIFIC documents, not a general business process. One can have a general business process of shredding all documents, unless you believe they will be needed at some future time. That is a SUBJECTIVE call. It's that 'intent' in the cites that were so graciously provided. If you destroy all your documents (eg IBM puts a 90 archive period on ALL email, if it's needed for business purposes that is left up to the individual employee to make that call) as a matter of course and in the process documents are destroyed that are relevant to future litigation then the courts must demonstrate that you had some REASON TO SUSPECT they would be needed. In the case of both examples before neither party habitually got rid of documents (a doctor which destroys patient records isn't much of a doctor). Usually you draw a false distinction, in this case you are failing to make the distinction at all. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 16:20:13 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:20:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: <20010804120034.A4348@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Eric Murray wrote: > There's no CDR contract. At least I didn't sign one. You don't have to sign it. You only have to agree to it verbally, or in this case email. A verbal agreement between two parties that dictate how they will relate to each other is a contract. If you don't want to abide by that 'informal' agreement then I'll gladly remove you from the SSZ CDR feed. It's your call. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 18:29:38 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:29:38 -0700 Subject: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6C31E8.20796.1F57AF9@localhost> Message-ID: Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him repeatedly to quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that I have said. His cowardice in failing to reproduce those requested passages (or even my requests for the requested passages) is manifest. Give his intellectual dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I see nothing to be gained from trying to teach this particular swine to learn how to sing. I graciously cede the last word (which he will undoubtedly squander) to my second-most favorite canarypunk. Rock on, dud. S a n d y > -----Original Message----- > From: jamesd at echeque.com [mailto:jamesd at echeque.com] > Sent: 04 August, 2001 17:33 > To: jamesd at echeque.com; cypherpunks at lne.com; Sandy Sandfort > Subject: RE: Spoliation cites > > > -- > On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they > way one makes > > educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are > > NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. > > And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation > of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents. > > In any case, you are backpeddling like mad. Having dug yourself > into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, > you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously > made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of > existing laws and courts precedents is > none too hot. > > What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously > mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into > something like your original claim. > > How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming > omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass? > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i > 4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86 From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 18:55:35 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:55:35 -0700 Subject: Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Good point J.A., I got my cowards mixed up. I stand corrected. It's you that sends his son to beat of folks for expressing opinions you don't like. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of measl at mfn.org > Sent: 04 August, 2001 18:47 > To: cypherpunks at ssz.com > Cc: jamesd at echeque.com; cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: CDR: JIM DONALD IS A > CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites) > > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his > son--rolls > > of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his > dirty work), I > > That's me you're referring to you moron. If you are going to resort to ad > hominem, at least get your references straight... > > > S a n d y > > -- > Yours, > J.A. Terranson > sysadmin at mfn.org > > If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they > should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: > Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of > unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in > the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and > elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire > populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... > This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States > as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. > > The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, > associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of > those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the > first place... > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 17:53:26 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 19:53:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <20010804230329.4155.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: On 4 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > But the point is, yes, definitely the judge can demand every single > copy of a document, and this case clearly demonstrates it in action. But, in this case (as I've claimed in the past) EACH AND EVERY COPY represent harm to the plaintiff. Of course it makes sense to recover all copies where each of those copies will cause harm. The purpose of the court, and law in general, is to reduce 'harm'. That is NOT the same thing as demanding that an author of a work turn over each and every copy of same. Of course if there was a defamation issue then again it would make sense to recover each and every copy. In the case of something like the Pentagon Papers it makes sense to ATTEMPT to recover said documents. Since each copy represents harm. Bottem line, if the court orders all copies siezed there must be some indication of harm if ANY SINGLE copy remains unrecovered. Otherwise it's just a violation of the 1st. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 17:57:18 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 19:57:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract > (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) 1. Capacity of the parties. 2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meeting of the minds (a valid offer and acceptance) 3. Consideration (somethingof value given in exchange for a promise) 4. Legality of subject matter. > or it violates the Statute of Frauds or similar rules (you know about the > Statute of Frauds and similar rules, don't you Jimbo?) Yep, but do your own research. > or violates some public policy (you know about those public policy concepts > don't you Jimbo?). Yep, see above. > Any failure along these lines would render such a verbal "agreement" > unenforceable in contract. And not a one applies here. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 18:04:13 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:04:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. In-Reply-To: <012f01c11d40$6cfcbde0$d2972040@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sandy Sandfort" > To: > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 4:44 PM > Subject: RE: Final Words from me about document production requirements and > remailers. > > > > Black Unicorn wrote: > > > > [masterful summation elided] > > > > > My only regret in pointing this > > > out is that I think Mr. Sandfort > > > might owe someone a house. (I > > > note he never put a dollar figure > > > on the house bet though). > > > > My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration) > > Not to mention the statute of frauds (as it was a transaction in real estate). The British Parliament, in 1677, in order to prevent fraud arising out of an oral agreement passed the Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries. It requires there be specific evidence in writing of the agreement (called a 'memorandum'). Email isn't verbal, it's written and therefore does qualify at least peripheraly. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 18:12:56 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:12:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: <20010804155726.D41232@rebma.pro-ns.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Bill O'Hanlon wrote: > I looked, and I can't find the mail we exchanged, though I do remember > exchanging mail at the time. Spoliation!!!!!! ;) I don't keep 'em either. > Spell out what it is that you think we've agreed to, and I'll report back > with how well I intend to comply, and you can decide what you want to put > on your homepage. Already did......what traffic you get from other CDR nodes you pass on unmodified. What happens between you and your subscribers is between you and your subscribers and doesn't commit other CDR nodes or their subscribers. Really simple, how the hell you could 'forget' is pretty convenient... (Sandy should consider selling copies of that fancy backpedaling bicycle he has, maybe he'll share some of those mail order drugs thought they don't seem to be helping a damn bit) ps You're already listed as a moderated hub. http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 20:26:04 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:26:04 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B6C5A5C.28428.29381FB@localhost> -- On 4 Aug 2001, at 14:54, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Jimbo II wrote: > > > You, and Black Unicorn, have taken that > > extreme position. You were full of shit. > > Show me where I took that position. Put up or shut up, Jimbo II. A few posts back when I pointed out that most businesses engage in routine, regularly scheduled deletion of potentially inconvenient records, and none of them have got in trouble for it yet, you replied that a business that engages in that practice is like a man who has jumped from a tall building and boasts that he has not hit anything hard yet. Now, however, you deny ever taking that position, indicating that your previous position (the position that you proclaimed so pompously and patronizingly) was a load of old bananas, which in turn indicates that in this area of the law, you do not know shit from beans Whenever I ask our company lawyer a legal question, he usually answers "That is not my area of expertise". You should try that answer. It will keep you out of lots of trouble. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mKrxv4usZ5hBIK0d2YohwCLJQIoHzWOPfiPEN/jd 4ey4eUt9h8r7iMn8KRlC29ieqEb7/l4Smn0KoyTx2 From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 20:26:04 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:26:04 -0700 Subject: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6C31E8.20796.1F57AF9@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6C5A5C.17575.29381F1@localhost> On 4 Aug 2001, at 18:29, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Jimbo II has really gone off the deep end. I've asked him repeatedly to > quote me directly where I have said the things he alleges that have said.' You have asked me once, off list. I replied, off list. Now I will repost that reply on the list. -- On 4 Aug 2001, at 14:26, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Show me where I took that position. A few posts back when I pointed out that most businesses engage in routine, regularly scheduled deletion of potentially inconvenient records, and none of them have got in trouble for it yet, you replied that a business that engages in that practice is like a man who has jumped from a tall building and boasts that he has not hit anything hard yet. Now, however, you deny ever taking that position, indicating that your previous position (the position that you proclaimed so pompously and patronizingly) was a load of old bananas, which in turn indicates that in this area of the law, you do not know shit from beans Whenever I ask our company lawyer a legal question, he usually answers "That is not my area of expertise". You should try that answer. It will keep you out of lots of trouble. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG L/TcMqBOExR0C26MZiO0EljjnWkcbyv8XYNyS2V1 4btCzzwGyuR3bJ/aMmwN9+Dycb01OHuOM4E4oXHm+ > His cowardice in failing to reproduce those requested passages (or even my > requests for the requested passages) is manifest. Give his intellectual > dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls > of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I > see nothing to be gained from trying to teach this particular swine to learn > how to sing. > > I graciously cede the last word (which he will undoubtedly squander) to my > second-most favorite canarypunk. Rock on, dud. > > > S a n d y > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jamesd at echeque.com [mailto:jamesd at echeque.com] > > Sent: 04 August, 2001 17:33 > > To: jamesd at echeque.com; cypherpunks at lne.com; Sandy Sandfort > > Subject: RE: Spoliation cites > > > > > > -- > > On 4 Aug 2001, at 12:46, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they > > way one makes > > > educated assessments about how laws may be interpreted in the future are > > > NECESSARILY based on understanding laws and court precedents. > > > > And as any one can tell you predictions of how the interpretation > > of laws will CHANGE cannot be based on existing laws and court precedents. > > > > In any case, you are backpeddling like mad. Having dug yourself > > into a hole with improbable claims on mandatory record keeping, > > you are now disowning with great confidence claims you previously > > made with equal confidence, indicating your understanding of > > existing laws and courts precedents is > > none too hot. > > > > What was previously a claim about existing law, has mysteriously > > mutated into a mere prophecy that future law might change into > > something like your original claim. > > > > How about simply saying "I was wrong", instead of proclaiming > > omnicience twice as loudly when you are caught with your head up your ass? > > > > --digsig > > James A. Donald > > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > > oYQwaBShfigTeer8NiMlXddKCdSOWTS4O8e02M+i > > 4E5drtnvUZpAn4ZvzKDgEPqKkBdbdXNEe/BBlTF86 From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 4 20:40:56 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:40:56 -0700 Subject: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <00ad01c11d2b$a02f53e0$d2972040@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B6C5DD8.9538.2A11E03@localhost> -- georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > > > I consider it, as I said, monstrous that a judge can > > > legally deprive me of all copies of my own work in order to > > > enforce a gag order, but again, if that's the way it is, > > > that's the way it is. But it goes well beyond the bizzare > > > to suggest that I should anticipate the possibility of a > > > gag order and preemptively gag myself in case one might be > > > issued at a later date. James A. Donald: > > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, > > lawyers will be irrelevant, and will have been irrelevant for > > a long time before the such anyone attempts such crap. > > > > These guys (Black Unicorn and his cheer squad) are loons, and > > I cannot imagine why they post such nonsense. Black Unicorn > The only thing that is more surprising than your total willful > ignorance (have you even bothered to look at the several cites > I have posted that positively refute your statement above? A few posts back one of your loudest supporters suddenly reversed course and proclaimed that neither he nor yourself ever took such an extreme position, (his typically polite method of issuing a retraction) yet here you are taking an extreme position once again. The only cite that could possibly refute my words above would be to cite someone being busted, since the behavior you claim is illegal, the behavior that George announces his intention to engage in, is routine in most well run companies. > I have cited authority for the proposition that courts, and more often > plaintiffs, routinely demand broad productions related to a given matter. To be relevant to the case I and George speak of above, you need to cite an actual bust of someone whose work is deemed a thought crime, and was punished for ensuring that it was distributed out of his control before it was declared a thought crime. No one doubts that courts have broad authority to demand pie in the sky. What people doubt is that courts have broad authority to punish those who have rendered pie in the sky unobtainable, well before the case began, to punish those that have rendered the demand for pie in the sky moot. As I posted earlier in response to your claim of broad authority: Glendower: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep." Hotspur: "Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?" > I have cited authorities. I have cited examples. You have not cited relevant examples. We have actual legal precedents where a remailer operator was summoned before a court and said "Sorry, I do not keep logs." end of discussion. They cannot suddenly turn around and punish one for doing what one has legal precedent to believe is legal, and if we ever get to that point, you will have been unemployed for some considerable time. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG lZd4vAi2TTpp5GRW15mn1q+cyAFO0PJtAiYPT7GK 4aBAZQL08uKxJdCdzB6Qq5wZagEOir8ecDvv5GFYB From measl at mfn.org Sat Aug 4 18:46:44 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:46:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: JIM DONALD IS A CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > dishonesty and cowardice (next, I suppose, he'll be sending his son--rolls > of quarters clenched tightly in his little fists--to do his dirty work), I That's me you're referring to you moron. If you are going to resort to ad hominem, at least get your references straight... > S a n d y -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 18:49:30 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:49:30 -0500 Subject: MATT DRUDGE: 200 women to be impregnated with cloned embryos Message-ID: <3B6CA62A.DABED098@ssz.com> Yip, yip, yahooo!!!!!!!! http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 18:50:14 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:50:14 -0500 Subject: Governors Seeking Internet Tax Message-ID: <3B6CA656.2C89501@ssz.com> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 18:53:34 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:53:34 -0500 Subject: Linux Today - MachineOfTheMonth: Audio conferencing with Linux [SSZ: incl. encryption they claim] Message-ID: <3B6CA71E.C6DD8094@ssz.com> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-08-04-007-20-SC-HL-SW -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From sandfort at mindspring.com Sat Aug 4 21:21:06 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:21:06 -0700 Subject: ...THE GODS THEMSELVES... Message-ID: C'punks, Coming up with the "canarypunks" concept, has really clarified my thinking. I'm taking the pledge and will no longer strive to protect the dumbest and most aggressively ignorant members of this list (the Three Stooges) from the error or their ways. I finally got it through my head that they don't WANT to deal with the truth, but are incapable of reaching beyond their own self-referential worldview. As Friedrich von Schiller put it, "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." So, I'm going to do something far crueler than point out the inadequacies of the Three Stooges: I'm going to ignore those inadequacies and let reality provide the lesson. The folks on this list who are smart enough to understand that the "lawyerpunks" are on their side, will listen to their take on the law. The folks who think the lawyers are out to get them will go to the Three Stooges for legal advice. Reality will choose the winners and losers. Very Darwinian. S a n d y From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 4 21:24:09 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:24:09 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3B6BEB72.3585.E23F92@localhost> Message-ID: <200108050424.f754Oax09164@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 4, 2001, at 12:32 PM, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > -- > On 3 Aug 2001, at 20:59, Ray Dillinger wrote: >> the point is, that's enough. Both endpoints on such a packet's >> route are participants, obviously. If they want to shut it >> down, and they have seen such a packet, they have two people >> they can shut down. Repeat ad nauseam, and the infrastructure >> is destroyed. > > This assumes a unity and cohesion that lawless states are rarely > capable of. If a government is so oppressive that it is doing that, > government officials will have probably already stolen the wires for > the copper, and will not have the technology to figure out what is > going on over the ether. Entrance and exit mixes can easily be set to be Usenet or other Net-based public posting and reading places. Kind of hard for the U.S.G. or the F.S.U. to shut down a newsgroup replicated across the world in many places. Also, "repeat ad nauseum" still carries costs. Even the lawyers in Washington can't easily shut down publishers like "The Progressive" or "The New York Times." It costs a lot of money to shut down a publisher. I see no particular reason why it will suddenly become cheap ("repeat ad nauseum") for lawyers to shut down tens of thousands of Web sites, publishers, mailing lists, message pools, and Democracy Walls. Especially, by the way, if those entry and exit sites are in other countries. --Tim May From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 4 19:24:47 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:24:47 -0500 Subject: Spoliation of Evidence and the Line Firefighter Message-ID: <3B6CAE6F.6CF6D849@ssz.com> http://home.earthlink.net/~dliske/article1.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From schear at lvcm.com Sat Aug 4 21:49:32 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:49:32 -0700 Subject: Governors Seeking Internet Tax In-Reply-To: <3B6CA656.2C89501@ssz.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010804214156.03dd0770@pop3.lvcm.com> At 08:50 PM 8/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html > >Governors Seeking Internet Tax >By Leslie Gevirtz >PROVIDENCE, R.I. (Reuters) - Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer on Saturday urged >Congress to allow states to tax e-commerce to replenish state coffers. Perhaps some on the list can explain to me what the governors are asking from Congress. A plain reading of the Constitution supports and recent SC decisions have confirmed that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from taxing out-of-state corporations without an in-state nexus. Congress is also prohibited from delegating their taxation powers to the states, in the same way the SC ruled they may not delegate to the Pres the editing of bills via the line item veto, so what are they asking for? steve From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 4 22:22:00 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 22:22:00 -0700 Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: <20010805002633.D18847@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108050522.f755MWx09447@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 4, 2001, at 09:26 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:00:34PM -0700, Eric Murray wrote: >> Posts that are received (enter the CDR system) at lne and are forwarded >> to the other CDRs are demimed. >> >> Posts originating from another CDR are demimed on the way >> to lne CDR subscribers. >> >> Posts originating from another CDR and being forwarded to >> another CDR aren't demimed. > > I have no problem with demime-ing posts, and applaud Eric's work > to maintain a readable cypherpunks node. > > My only point, addressed to the fellow who sent an attachment, > is that sending such things to any cypherpunks node makes little > sense. Many of the more frequent posters now use the lne.com node, > so we'll never see your attachment. And, depending on where the > message enters the system, others may not either. > There are many good reasons why mailing lists should not use attachments: -- viruses, worms -- attachments are best arranged beforehand, for the virus/worm reason, and to minimize sudden bogdowns in downloads -- with URLs so common, a pointer to a stored file someplace accomplishes most tasks people intend to do with attachments -- attachments that are not pictures (vacation pics sent by mail, commonly) are usually formatted Word or whatever documents...not needed for mailing lists, and not welcome -- mailing lists of several hundred subscribers...'nuff said. -- diverse mailers...everything from Emacs to elm to Eudora to AmigaMail. Expecting hundreds of subscribers on dozens of mail systems to open an attachment is foolish. Anyone who _did_ get a big attachment through would likely go into my kill file. --Tim May From drevil at sidereal.kz Sat Aug 4 15:47:58 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 4 Aug 2001 22:47:58 -0000 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo Message-ID: <20010804224758.10845.qmail@sidereal.kz> What's up with voice encryption? I'm ready to use it. I'm ready to pay money for it. However, this is only if it uses a real crypto algorithm (AES, 3DES, and not some "proprietary" crap) and if it has a published protocol, so we can verify that it is actually encrypting properly. Starium has had "demo" units out for almost two years now, but their web page has been static for a long time, and no one has answered the phone there for a long time. Any others? I know that voice encryption is the last great crypto taboo, and I'm waiting for it to fall. I am aware of quite a few other voice encryption units out there, but all that I have looked into have used a proprietary protocol, and even worse, some proprietary crypto algorithm. That seems pretty useless. If their alg is so fabulous why didn't they submit it to the AES competition? Ergo, their alg is not so fabulous. From drevil at sidereal.kz Sat Aug 4 16:03:29 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 4 Aug 2001 23:03:29 -0000 Subject: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <00ad01c11d2b$a02f53e0$d2972040@thinkpad574> (unicorn@schloss.li) References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803084501.03bc36e0@pop3.norton.antivirus> <3B6BD76E.26411.940FE0@localhost> <00ad01c11d2b$a02f53e0$d2972040@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <20010804230329.4155.qmail@sidereal.kz> > > Judges have never attempted such crap, and if they do, lawyers will Please do a search for "Negativland" and "U2" on your favorite search engine. They were ordered to return to the court or U2's reccord label or whatever, all the copies they had of their U2 album. Every single copy. Interestingly, there was a distrinction between digital and analog copies; Negativland would distributed tapes at their shows, but never CDs. Anyway, U2 got quite embarassed by this, so they may have told their lawyers to back off, after the case was all over. But the point is, yes, definitely the judge can demand every single copy of a document, and this case clearly demonstrates it in action. Negativland weren't arrested, but they did go into bankruptcy because of this, and they had to go into hiding to escape creditors. Perhaps now they would just be arrested, I don't know. From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 4 23:41:22 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:41:22 -0700 Subject: Governors Seeking Internet Tax In-Reply-To: <20010805011321.A26294@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108050641.f756fjx09656@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 4, 2001, at 10:13 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > I'm no expert on this -- in fact, I've studiously avoided becoming one > on this -- but my understanding is that under the Quill decision, > California can't force PennsylvaniaBooks.com to collect sales taxes on > shipments to SF and remit it to the Calif tax collectors. (Without > nexus, that is.) > > Ideally the guvs would like federal law to modify the Quill ruling. I'm with Steve Schear on this one. If Alice in California buys a thing from a person or store in Pennsylvania, and that store is not operating in California (the "nexus"), then charging a tax on that item is NOT a "sales tax." It is much more like a tariff on goods entering California. (What else could it be? The sale is not happening at a store in California, or even arguably at an out-of-state "branch" of a store in California, there being no such store at all in California. Thus the "tax" is really just a tariff or duty. Something specifically forbidden.) Of course, states like California get around _parts_ of this ruling when people bring cars bought elsewhere into California: they require some calculated amount of the effective sales tax, had the car been bought in California, to be paid upon registration of the car. --Tim May From nobody at dizum.com Sat Aug 4 14:50:28 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:50:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights Message-ID: <766c52281b32a05c18c8d72d70e6756c@dizum.com> From declan at well.com Sat Aug 4 21:20:15 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:20:15 -0400 Subject: Official Reporters have more copyright rights In-Reply-To: <766c52281b32a05c18c8d72d70e6756c@dizum.com>; from nobody@dizum.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:50:28PM +0200 References: <766c52281b32a05c18c8d72d70e6756c@dizum.com> Message-ID: <20010805002015.C18847@cluebot.com> Unfortunately for your inbox, and fortunately, perhaps, for the continued viability of procmail, I have no intention of changing my interactions with Choate or others based on your personal preferences. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:50:28PM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: Official Reporters have more copyright rights > > Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Why did I ever deprocmail Choate?... > > I expect this will be my only response to Choate in the foreseeable > > future. Sigh. > > I certainly hope so. Messages like this move you closer to my > procmail file, even though you're often worth reading. You're as easy > to deal with as Jim, if you persist on mixing your online persona with > his. From declan at well.com Sat Aug 4 21:26:33 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:26:33 -0400 Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: <20010804120034.A4348@slack.lne.com>; from ericm@lne.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:00:34PM -0700 References: <20010804010725.C30609@cluebot.com> <20010804120034.A4348@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010805002633.D18847@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:00:34PM -0700, Eric Murray wrote: > Posts that are received (enter the CDR system) at lne and are forwarded > to the other CDRs are demimed. > > Posts originating from another CDR are demimed on the way > to lne CDR subscribers. > > Posts originating from another CDR and being forwarded to > another CDR aren't demimed. I have no problem with demime-ing posts, and applaud Eric's work to maintain a readable cypherpunks node. My only point, addressed to the fellow who sent an attachment, is that sending such things to any cypherpunks node makes little sense. Many of the more frequent posters now use the lne.com node, so we'll never see your attachment. And, depending on where the message enters the system, others may not either. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 4 21:28:46 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:28:46 -0400 Subject: Demime & CDRs (was Re: Security Against Compelled Disclosure) In-Reply-To: ; from ravage@ssz.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 06:20:13PM -0500 References: <20010804120034.A4348@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010805002846.E18847@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 06:20:13PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > A verbal agreement between two parties that dictate how they will relate > to each other is a contract. Could you provide some cites to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and some recent articles on Slashdot to back up that point? Always looking to learn something new and novel, Declan From BeatTheMarketjhjso94032 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 22:43:58 2001 From: BeatTheMarketjhjso94032 at yahoo.com (BeatTheMarketjhjso94032 at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 00:43:58 -0500 Subject: Attention Traders: Beat The Market Anytime Free 2 Weeks! kdfjklsd9 Message-ID: <6ned1.5tjoit53c7@mail6.excite.com> FAXLINE, which has brought its readers daily picks for short term
trading over the past 11 years. With the new name we will be always
trying to bring new ideas to our short term trading system. Our
system is targeted for trades of 1-3 days, but many daytraders
use the service as their primary source of information. We also have
outstanding results in OEX trading (S&P 100) and over 30% of our
subscribers trade just OEX options.

the last year. You will see how consistant our results are in both
up and down markets. You can then try the full service that we
send to our subscribers for 2 FREE WEEKS. If you like to trade
stocks that move quickly then TRADERS PROPHET is for you.
Swing traders to daytraders benefit from the technical analysis
we use to generate our daily picks. Which are proven winners!

For Your 2 Free Weeks!

From declan at well.com Sat Aug 4 22:13:22 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:13:22 -0400 Subject: Governors Seeking Internet Tax In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010804214156.03dd0770@pop3.lvcm.com>; from schear@lvcm.com on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:49:32PM -0700 References: <3B6CA656.2C89501@ssz.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20010804214156.03dd0770@pop3.lvcm.com> Message-ID: <20010805011321.A26294@cluebot.com> I'm no expert on this -- in fact, I've studiously avoided becoming one on this -- but my understanding is that under the Quill decision, California can't force PennsylvaniaBooks.com to collect sales taxes on shipments to SF and remit it to the Calif tax collectors. (Without nexus, that is.) Ideally the guvs would like federal law to modify the Quill ruling. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:49:32PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote: > At 08:50 PM 8/4/2001 -0500, you wrote: > >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html > > > >Governors Seeking Internet Tax > >By Leslie Gevirtz > >PROVIDENCE, R.I. (Reuters) - Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer on Saturday urged > >Congress to allow states to tax e-commerce to replenish state coffers. > > Perhaps some on the list can explain to me what the governors are asking > from Congress. A plain reading of the Constitution supports and recent SC > decisions have confirmed that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from > taxing out-of-state corporations without an in-state nexus. Congress is > also prohibited from delegating their taxation powers to the states, in the > same way the SC ruled they may not delegate to the Pres the editing of > bills via the line item veto, so what are they asking for? > > steve From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 4 23:19:14 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:19:14 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6C31E8.23884.1F57AF9@localhost> Message-ID: > As for what Aimee is saying -- that was not very clear, and the > more she says, the less clear it is. Aimee is tired, and doesn't figure it's worth the time or effort. Sandy and Uni have more patience than I do. ~Aimee From jamesd at echeque.com Sun Aug 5 01:34:01 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:34:01 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6BEB72.23584.E23FA6@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6CA289.7997.402C1D@localhost> -- Harmon Seaver > > > > As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away all > > > > your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it. At 7:22 PM -0700 8/2/01, Black Unicorn wrote: > > > Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this point > > > you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here > > > say exactly the > > > opposite of what you claim above. James A. Donald: > > A couple of posts ago Aimee confidently declared that none of the > > people presenting themselves as lawyers on this list had made the > > claim that you just made again. On 4 Aug 2001, at 17:53, Aimee Farr wrote: > Read the definition of ordinary course of business - it implies > good faith by nature. You seem to think ordinary course of > business means "shred away!" That is the ordinary course of business at Microsoft, and most other well run companies. If the chances are we do not need this record, get rid of it, for fear it may cause trouble in future, as Microsoft was so recently painfully reminded about email. If one keeps records, and suddenly someone sues one, and THEN one starts shredding, yes, then one can get into trouble. If however, one shreds away indiscriminately, on a routine and regular schedule, one is in the clear. As a remailer operator said to the courts "Sorry, I do not keep records". Now if he had kept records, and then erased them on being summoned to the court, he would have had a problem. But because he erased them routinely, no problem. This is well known existing practice and existing precedent. Everyone does it, the courts run into it every day, no one gets punished. If you do not know that, you do not know shit from beans. If you deny what I say, where is that executive who is doing time for routine regularly scheduled destruction of potentially inconvenient records? Where is that remailer operator who is in trouble for not keeping logs? > Read Lewy. Lewy says you can't hide behind a policy and destroy > documents you KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN might be relevant in > future litigation - before you are served with suit or a > preservation order. All documents and any documents might be relevant in future litigation, no document can be proven innocent, yet out here in the real world they all hit the shredder just the same. Most people do it. Most lawsuits are obstructed by it. Where are the executives in jail? Is Bill Gates going to jail in the current case because he now has his old email purged? You guys keep telling us we are not allowed to routinely purge records, yet everyone is purging records, everyone has been purging records, no one is in trouble for it. Where is the executive who is doing time for the routine regularly scheduled destruction of records and purging of email? > Yes, courts are likely to differ in their application based on > the unique facts. However, if your ordinary course of business > is to destroy or make unavailable of records in specific > anticipation of a law suit or criminal complaint, But if you routinely destroy records on the basis that all records of type Y more than X days old shall be destroyed, unless there is some specific reason for keeping them, routine, regularly scheduled erasure of logs, then you are not destroying them in specific anticipation of a lawsuit. You may well be destroying them in general anticipation of the general possibility of lawsuits, as Microsoft quite obviously is, as most companies quite obviously are, but Microsoft is not destroying them in specific anticipation of a specific lawsuit, so they are in the clear. Shred away routine and indiscriminately, chuck everything into the shredder on a regular schedule, as part of a general policy aimed at getting rid of potentially dangerous records, no problem. Shred specific records as part of a specific policy of defense against a specific lawsuit, that is a problem. "Sorry, we do not keep such records" is a defense that is continually used and continually works. One only gets into trouble if one destroyed certain particular records in response to a particular legal threat, if one chucked out certain problem records and not others, or one chucked out records in response to particular litigation. James A. Donald: > > She is backpeddling, because it has become obvious your claim is > > nonsense, and the fact that you made it, (and perhaps she made it > > also before denying that she or anyone else had made it) shows > > you do not know shit from beans. Aimee: > No, Sandfort, Unicorn and I are in agreement. Then you are ignorant twits. Most people do it, courts continually run up against it, no one is in jail for it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG H1ELh4ScJ8JdRjZbb43YNfqofrnco4bT2i0LWLSu 4ezPB9qtJbDbxuD6ubuHEJvs+/pj9F5CfawpStrg5 From 1support at microsoft.com Sun Aug 5 02:02:25 2001 From: 1support at microsoft.com (1support at microsoft.com) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 02:02:25 Subject: Information You Requested from Microsoft.com Message-ID: NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT MONITORED. Welcome to Microsoft Online ID secure Internet environment! Below is your membership information. Please keep this confirmation mail as a record of your password. Consider this information confidential and treat accordingly. Your Microsoft Online ID Password is: cypherpunks A Microsoft Online ID provides access to various Microsoft secured programs. Please check the Frequently Asked Questions and/or Help page of the program you are accessing for questions. Sincerely, Microsoft Online ID Administrator From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Sat Aug 4 18:01:29 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (COFOR) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:01:29 +0200 Subject: Le interesara Message-ID: <200108050108.VAA16051@waste.minder.net> 1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas.No lo pienses mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve. Envie e-mail: COTFORTR at terra.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUERRT at terra.es distancia.20 at wanadoo.es Jose Garceran COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL C/Constitucion.34 03310-Alicante España ------------------ From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Sat Aug 4 18:01:32 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (COFOR) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:01:32 +0200 Subject: Le interesara Message-ID: <200108050401.f7541GJ22021@rigel.cyberpass.net> 1.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas.No lo pienses mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve. Envie e-mail: COTFORTR at terra.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUERRT at terra.es distancia.20 at wanadoo.es Jose Garceran COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL C/Constitucion.34 03310-Alicante España ------------------ From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Sat Aug 4 12:25:01 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:25:01 +0800 Subject: Book1 Message-ID: <200108042219.f74MJwJ11815@rigel.cyberpass.net> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Book1.xls.com Type: application/mixed Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Sat Aug 4 12:26:06 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:26:06 +0800 Subject: Book1 Message-ID: <200108050927.EAA08864@einstein.ssz.com> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Book1.xls.com Type: application/mixed Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sun Aug 5 03:07:03 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 05:07:03 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites Message-ID: james wrote: > If one keeps records, and suddenly someone sues one, and THEN one > starts shredding, yes, then one can get into trouble. If > however, one shreds away indiscriminately, on a routine and > regular schedule, one is in the clear. As a remailer operator > said to the courts "Sorry, I do not keep > records". > > Now if he had kept records, and then erased them on being > summoned to the court, he would have had a problem. But because > he erased them routinely, no problem. If you read any of those cites and shep'd them, you will see there are circumstances where defendants didn't know the documents were relevant to a specific lawsuit. There is support for the words "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" might NOT equivocate to: "a lawsuit has been filed." Nor even "expect a specific lawsuit." Furthermore, in Lewy, they did adhere to a destruction policy and plaintiffs got a jury instruction allowing for a negative inference. Does this tell you anything? Normally, you consider the following in a retention policy: o pending or threatened litigation = easy answer, keep it. o statute-specific retention requirements = easy answer.... o statutes of limitations = starts getting fuzzy here, usually the length of the relationship, plus the limitations periods.... o real estate = long time. o IP = forever. o email = most say a few weeks, unless it is a complaint, etc. It's not so simple as many think. It's document specific. ------- In certain cases, opponents may argue that the high-risk nature of certain enterprises amounts to a state of continual pending or threatened litigation, although non-specific in nature. They also may argue, as in Lewy, that destruction pursuant to a retention policy and normal business practice -- is not good enough. The court will look beyond the practice to ask if the policy is reasonable GIVEN THE PARTICULAR NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT AT ISSUE. The root of the matter is: SHOULD YOU HAVE KEPT IT? The court seemed to infer in Lewy that the nature of the business and the likelihood of litigation is a consideration. -------------------------------------------------------- Lewy v. Remington Arms Co. 836 F.2d 1104 (8th Cir., 1998) -------------------------------------------------------- ..."We hold that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that Remington knew the M700 was dangerous. The following evidence was before the jury: complaints from customers and gunsmiths that the Model 700 would fire upon release of safety, some of these complaints dating back as far as the early 1970s; .... .....Remington was unable to produce several documents that were destroyed pursuant to Remington's "record retention policy." Remington argues that destroying records pursuant to routine procedures does not provide an inference adverse to the party that destroyed the documents. Smith v. Uniroyal, Inc., 420 F.2d 438, 442-43 (7th Cir. 1970). The record reflects that Remington had its record retention policy in place as early as 1970. In addition, the records that have been destroyed pursuant to the policy -- complaints and gun examination reports -- were kept for a period of three years and if no action regarding a particular record was taken in that period it was destroyed. Vick v. Texas Employment Commission, 514 F.2d 734, 737 (5th Cir. 1975) (records destroyed pursuant to regulations governing inactive records). ...First, the court should determine whether Remington's record retention policy is reasonable considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the relevant documents. For example, the court should determine whether a three year retention policy is reasonable given the particular document. A three year retention policy may be sufficient for documents such as appointment books or telephone messages, but inadequate for documents such as customer complaints. ****************** ...Second, in making this determination the court may also consider whether lawsuits concerning the complaint or related complaints have been filed, the frequency of such complaints, and the magnitude of the complaints. ***************** [i.e., not just lawsuits - complaints. The court probably wanted to know if the defendant was on notice that this information would be sought in future NON-SPECIFIC litigation.] **************** Finally, the court should determine whether the document retention policy was instituted in bad faith. Gumbs v. International Harvester, Inc., 718 F.2d 88, 96 (3rd Cir. 1983) ("no unfavorable inference arises when the circumstances indicate that the document or article in question has been lost or accidentally destroyed, or where the failure to produce it is otherwise properly accounted for."); Boyd v. Ozark Air Lines, Inc., 568 F.2d 50, 53 (8th Cir. 1977) ("We recognize, however, that the destruction of business records may be sufficient to raise an unfavorable inference."). In cases where a document retention policy is instituted in order to limit damaging evidence available to potential plaintiffs, it may be proper to give an instruction similar to the one requested by the Lewys. Similarly, even if the court finds the policy to be reasonable given the nature of the documents subject to the policy, the court may find that under the particular circumstances certain documents should have been retained notwithstanding the policy. ************ For example, if the corporation knew or should have known that the documents would become material at some point in the future then such documents should have been preserved. Thus, a corporation cannot blindly destroy documents and expect to be shielded by a seemingly innocuous document retention policy. Gumbs, 718 F.2d at 96 ("Such a presumption or inference arises, however, only when the spoliation or destruction [of evidence] was intentional, and indicates fraud and a desire to suppress the truth, and it does not arise where the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent.") (quoting 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence ' 177 (1967)). ### In some high-risk endeavors, opponents may argue that destruction or purposeful non-retention = fraudulent intent. I don't think Remington REALLY wanted to keep those complaints 3 years, James. Ask yourself why they did even that. Look, we are just trying to envision what opponents are likely to try. The outcome will depend on the facts. Finally, the fact that a case (within the range of hypotheticals we have discussed) has not arisen is not dispositive on the issue. If that were the case, James, precedent would have no value, because the law could never move forward. Indeed, precedent, by it's very nature usually involves something novel. Otherwise, it wouldn't get to court, because everybody would know the answer. > You guys keep telling us we are not allowed to routinely purge > records, You keep speaking in absolutes. It's more complicated. > But if you routinely destroy records on the basis that all > records of type Y more than X days old shall be destroyed, unless > there is some specific reason for keeping them, routine, > regularly scheduled erasure of logs, then you are not destroying > them in specific anticipation of a lawsuit. You > may well be destroying them in general anticipation of the > general possibility of lawsuits, as Microsoft quite obviously is, > as most companies quite obviously are, but Microsoft is not > destroying them in specific anticipation of a specific lawsuit, > so they are in the clear. See above. ~Aimee From eregistr at nortelnetworks.com Sun Aug 5 02:25:24 2001 From: eregistr at nortelnetworks.com (Nortel-Networks Registration) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 05:25:24 -0400 Subject: Your Nortel Networks password is about to expire Message-ID: <200108050925.FAA04280@zcars04v.ca.nortel.com> This email has been generated by an automated process. Please DO NOT reply to this email. The password for your Nortel Networks account, cypherpunks at toad.com, will expire in (29 days). This password gives you access to your registration profile, along with the secured tools and services you have registered for. Please log on to http://www.nortelnetworks.com/crs, click on "Change Password" or "Forgot your password?" and follow the process to update your password. If you encounter any problems you can contact us in one of three ways: 1) Access the CRS home page at http://www.nortelnetworks.com/crs and click on the "Contact Us" link located in the bottom of the left margin. Fill out the information on the Contact Us screen and click on the Submit button. 2) Call us at 1 (800) 4 Nortel, or if you are outside the US or Canada, access http://www.nortelnetworks.com/crs and click on "International Numbers" on the bottom left side to get a complete international phone listing. 3) Contact your Nortel Networks representative and they can contact us on your behalf. From best_broker2020 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 5 07:24:58 2001 From: best_broker2020 at yahoo.com (Roger L. Martin) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 08:24:58 -0600 Subject: ASKING PERMISSION TO INCREASE YOUR SALES! Message-ID: <231972001805142458820@yahoo.com> INCREASE YOUR SALES! Hello: I'm asking permission to increase your sales, this is - Work at Home Business Opportunity - No Cost to Start! This will help you get REAL prequalified leads - Meaning - they will want to work, They will step by step gain greater confidence in doing THIS business. They will have the money for your MAIN business. They will trust you and be looking for another business opportunity (ei. your MAIN business ). The above is how you will begin to get better sales for your current or (MAIN BUSINESS), You will help these people, learn to work, build confidence, make money and lead many of them into your main business. This will increase sales and partners for your main opportunity or business, in time they will want to look for other opportunities from you! NOW BACK TO THIS OFFER -- I am offering a full or part-time position in Work at Home Email Processing Business. I do require that you have a computer and are familiar with Internet/Email functions. You will need to copy, paste and file. NO RISK TO YOU, As to the salary, it's totally up to you, as you will be running your own business, the sky is the limit. What you will see represents a completely legal money making business that anyone can run to generate a significant income. You will receive full instructions, and I will always be available to help you and answer your questions. This is a genuine home business. This is NOT a chain letter, money game, MLM or any of the multitudes of dubious "business" offers that come through your e-mail box. This business will easily generate in a month or two, a residual income of $2,000 to $6,000 each month, with only a part-time commitment (about 10 hours per week). *Note: This is NOT Pyramid selling of any kind, Pyramid selling is illegal. A full-time commitment (about 30 hours per week), based on statistics gathered from my current clients (and my own personal experience), will translate into an income of $10,000 or more per month! To prove my sincerity and confidence in this opportunity, there is NO CHARGE to join us for the first month. You will receive all the information to get started plus the first month's information package ($99 value). If by remote chance you are not satisfied with the program after the first month and want to discontinue, you may by all means do so, and I will not contact you again. Therefore, if you have NOT MADE MONEY in the FIRST MONTH, Which is highly unlikely, YOU WON'T PAY ANYTHING, IF YOU WORK IT LIKE YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DO, THIS IS SO SIMPLE ANY ONE CAN DO IT! But on the other hand, if you are satisfied with the program and wish to continue after the first month, then you would pay $99 for the next month's information package. Since you DO NOT pay anything until after you see how effective this is, you have absolutely nothing to lose! ******************************************************* IMPORTANT If the above opportunity interests you in the least, and you would like more specific information about the business, please contact: me at smartmoney2020 at yahoo.com Type "SEND INFO" in the Subject Line and insert your full name, your correct e-mail address, Your phone # If you don't have a phone # than tell me how I can get ahold of you by chat or voice conference, by giving me your user name and system you're using. For example: I use voice chat or chat with PALTALK, ITS FREE and my user name is "Eternal_Success2020" and I use ICQ # 5738085 this records all chat messages etc. Take your pick but stay in contact with me -- this is vital -- UNDERSTANDING THAT COMMUNICATION AND FOLLOW WITH EXPLODE YOUR BUSINESS IF DONE WELL, IF NOT IT WILL KILL YOUR BUSINESS. and any specific questions you may have at this time in the body of the message or CALL (406) 248-6999 MDT - Best after 6 p.m. Roger L. Martin To be removed, just type " REMOVE " in the subject, and click REPLY If you want real income and business reply to the following address smartmoney2020 at yahoo.com With "Send info" in subject line From schear at lvcm.com Sun Aug 5 09:15:26 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 09:15:26 -0700 Subject: Governors Seeking Internet Tax In-Reply-To: <20010805011321.A26294@cluebot.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010804214156.03dd0770@pop3.lvcm.com> <3B6CA656.2C89501@ssz.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20010804214156.03dd0770@pop3.lvcm.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010805090708.038f79f8@pop3.lvcm.com> At 01:13 AM 8/5/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I'm no expert on this -- in fact, I've studiously avoided becoming one >on this -- but my understanding is that under the Quill decision, >California can't force PennsylvaniaBooks.com to collect sales taxes on >shipments to SF and remit it to the Calif tax collectors. (Without >nexus, that is.) > >Ideally the guvs would like federal law to modify the Quill ruling. So, they ARE asking Congress to try and circumvent that nasty 'ol Commerce Clause. It should be interesting to see what Congress thinks it can fashion th will pass SC muster. steve From jamesd at echeque.com Sun Aug 5 09:19:33 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 09:19:33 -0700 Subject: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <20010804230329.4155.qmail@sidereal.kz> References: <00ad01c11d2b$a02f53e0$d2972040@thinkpad574> (unicorn@schloss.li) Message-ID: <3B6D0FA5.304.383318@localhost> -- > > > Judges have never attempted such crap, On 4 Aug 2001, at 23:03, Dr. Evil wrote: > Please do a search for "Negativland" and "U2" on your favorite > search engine. They were ordered to return to the court or > U2's reccord label or whatever, all the copies they had of > their U2 album. Every single copy. And had they previously dispersed these so as to ensure that they could not deprive themselves of every last copy, no matter how hard they cooperated with the judge, they would be in good shape. Sure, judges can issue any order they like. But if, before that inconvenient order is issued, you have rendered it moot, the judge is stuffed. And existing precedent is that if you rendered it moot, not by actions taken in anticipation of that specific lawsuit, but by routine and regularly scheduled actions, they are stuffed AND they cannot punish you for stuffing them -- or if they can punish you, no one has been punished yet. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG m9RWKkXvfzI/hw40BtTsPah8X9MqTBN7CZv9z9G1 4Bz7xZ/Sjs6Gfh6UG4ctXwEhe3Q2TMyj59+7+rT3w From jamesd at echeque.com Sun Aug 5 09:19:33 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 09:19:33 -0700 Subject: Final Words from me about document production requirements and remailers. In-Reply-To: <00f801c11d3a$52f0dc70$d2972040@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B6D0FA5.11119.383322@localhost> -- On 4 Aug 2001, at 16:08, Black Unicorn wrote: > > I am going to try and be as clear and as slow as possible- > knowing full well that it probably will make no difference and > that my words will be twisted, strawmaned, touted or defamed > whatever I do. Regardless: > > [...] The trial court permits the plaintiffs to sue for > spoliation, mostly on the basis of the disposition of the car, > not the papers or lack of records, although those are > mentioned, Another citation whose irrelevance demonstrates the absence of relevant cites. The basis of the spolation charge was not that the dealer should have kept records, but that the car was disposed of when it was supposedly material evidence. This cite, and the other cites you give, supposedly "open the door" to charging people for spolation for failing to keep records in the ordinary course of business. Yet no one has actually gone through that door, despite the very large number of of people who do not keep records in the ordinary course of business, and the very large number of lawsuits obstructed by that failure. > I submit that the facts of these two cases, along with some of > the others I've cited and the FRCP among other statutes, > suggest that it's not much of a stretch for a remailer operator > to find him or herself in the midst of a spoliation dispute. Perhaps it is not a large stretch. Yet it is a good deal bigger stretch than hitting Microsoft with a spolation suit for its new policy of routine and regularly scheduled destruction of records, and Microsoft has not yet been hit. > I submit further that a remailer operator would do themselves > quite a lot of favors if they put themselves in a position to > look squeaky clean in front of a judge if and when this > happens. We have real life-real cypherpunk examples that this > works From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 5 10:54:43 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:54:43 -0700 Subject: Stranger than anything Rand ever imagined In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010805122814.02148100@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <200108051755.f75HtVx12078@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 09:29 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > At 09:15 AM 8/5/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >> So, they ARE asking Congress to try and circumvent that nasty 'ol >> Commerce Clause. It should be interesting to see what Congress thinks >> it can fashion th will pass SC muster. > > Actually, this may be one of the few areas -- actual interstate trade > and taxes -- that come close to the meaning of the Commerce Clause. I > suspect a challenge will have to be made on public policy grounds > rather than constitutional ones. > California's energy crisis (cough) could be solved overnight if dynamos could be attached to the Founders spinning in their graves. Item: California is seeking to collect taxes on a transaction which did not occur in California. Sounds like a tariff on goods entering California. Sounds like what the commerce clause was designed explicitly to stop. Item: The Warren court ruled that a rib joint in the deep south somewhere could not choose its customers as it wished because turning away certain people might discourage them from travelling to that region, which might lessen the business of bus companies and other restaurants and gas stations and all, and so that was some kind of interference in interstate commerce. The commerce clause was invoked to interfere with a person doing with his property as he wishes. And there are the restrictions on what _crops_ a person may grow, even if never sells a single bushel, even a single peanut, on the alleged grounds that his act of growing a crop will affect what he and his family buy...and thus this affects the local Safeway store's business! Call it the "Suppression of Competition and Protection of Special Interests Ruling." (The usual sources, like Findlaw, have scads of references. This one is "Wickard v. Filburn.") (So, does this "open the door" for regulations on books which urge people to travel to New York instead of Iowa, on the grounds that these kinds of books "influence interstate commerce"? The mind boggles at what lawyers have done to these united states. Time to fire up the ovens and send them to the showers.) --Tim May From eregistr at nortelnetworks.com Sun Aug 5 09:05:20 2001 From: eregistr at nortelnetworks.com (Nortel-Networks Registration) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:05:20 -0500 Subject: Subject: Nortel Networks Registration Message-ID: <200108051605.LAA16510@zrchs033.us.nortel.com> Cypher Punk: Thank you for registering with Nortel Networks. As explained on the Thank You page, when you performed a �Forgot Password� function, your secure access to services and tools for Nortel Networks was temporarily suspended pending your confirmation of receipt of your password. Please access the URL provided and use your login and password to confirm your previous receipt of the reset password: http://www.nortelnetworks.com/link/crs-pending?code=15d52a5b We do appreciate your assistance in ensuring the proper handling of your secure password and secure access. Also, you can update your personal and access profiles at any time as your needs and interests change. Simply use this URL to update your personal profile and we will respond accordingly: http://www.nortelnetworks.com/crs If you have any questions or comments about your registration, your password, or access to online tools and services, you can contact us at 1 (800) 4 Nortel, or if you are outside the U.S, access the URL noted above and click on �International Numbers� in the left margin to get a complete international phone listing. As a reminder, please DO NOT respond to this email, but use the support numbers above, if you are in need of assistance. Thank you! From ravage at ssz.com Sun Aug 5 09:07:49 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:07:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: Austin Cypherpunks - Physical Meet - Aug. 14 Message-ID: Time: August 14, 2001 Second Tuesday of each month 7:00 - 9:00 pm (or later) Location: Central Market HEB Cafe 38th and N. Lamar Weather permitting we meet in the un-covered tables. If it's inclimate but not overly cold we meet in the outside covered section. Otherwise look for us inside the building proper. Identification: Look for the group with the "Applied Cryptography" book. It will have a red cover and is about 2 in. thick. Contact Info: http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr/index.html#austincpunks -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From eregistr at nortelnetworks.com Sun Aug 5 09:08:30 2001 From: eregistr at nortelnetworks.com (Nortel-Networks Registration) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:08:30 -0500 Subject: Subject: Nortel Networks Registration Message-ID: <200108051608.LAA16594@zrchs033.us.nortel.com> Cypher Punk: Thank you for registering with Nortel Networks. As explained on the Thank You page, when you performed a �Forgot Password� function, your secure access to services and tools for Nortel Networks was temporarily suspended pending your confirmation of receipt of your password. Please access the URL provided and use your login and password to confirm your previous receipt of the reset password: http://www.nortelnetworks.com/link/crs-pending?code=15d52a5b We do appreciate your assistance in ensuring the proper handling of your secure password and secure access. Also, you can update your personal and access profiles at any time as your needs and interests change. Simply use this URL to update your personal profile and we will respond accordingly: http://www.nortelnetworks.com/crs If you have any questions or comments about your registration, your password, or access to online tools and services, you can contact us at 1 (800) 4 Nortel, or if you are outside the U.S, access the URL noted above and click on �International Numbers� in the left margin to get a complete international phone listing. As a reminder, please DO NOT respond to this email, but use the support numbers above, if you are in need of assistance. Thank you! From jacke_t_fost at hotmail.com Sun Aug 5 01:17:40 2001 From: jacke_t_fost at hotmail.com (Switty Williams) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 11:17:40 +0300 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108050815.BAA00384@ecotone.toad.com> Hello my dear Love!!! I'm lost You email, but i'm find with help of my brother, he's cool hacker :)) You can find gallery of photos that I offered here: http://www.geocities.com/mypdome/ Bye chmok.... love, Switty...... From declan at well.com Sun Aug 5 08:33:05 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:33:05 -0400 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: ; from decoy@iki.fi on Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300 References: <200108050424.f754Oax09164@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010805113304.A18963@cluebot.com> On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such > widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, > IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical > broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the > groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the cypherpunks and such. -Declan From declan at well.com Sun Aug 5 08:41:01 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:41:01 -0400 Subject: Governors Seeking Internet Tax In-Reply-To: <200108050641.f756fjx09656@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:41:22PM -0700 References: <20010805011321.A26294@cluebot.com> <200108050641.f756fjx09656@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010805114101.B18963@cluebot.com> Actually under current law you're supposed to be paying tax on such purchases (you ordering from PennsylvaniaBoks.com, in my example). But almost nobody does pay taxes on their mail order purchases (that lack nexus), so the states are peeved. There are some bills in Congress that would give states the ability to make these taxes mandatory. There's talk of multistate compacts and all that, and tax simplificiation. Don't believe it, of course. I've written about this; search Wired.com for taxes. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:41:22PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > On Saturday, August 4, 2001, at 10:13 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > I'm no expert on this -- in fact, I've studiously avoided becoming one > > on this -- but my understanding is that under the Quill decision, > > California can't force PennsylvaniaBooks.com to collect sales taxes on > > shipments to SF and remit it to the Calif tax collectors. (Without > > nexus, that is.) > > > > Ideally the guvs would like federal law to modify the Quill ruling. > > > I'm with Steve Schear on this one. > > If Alice in California buys a thing from a person or store in > Pennsylvania, and that store is not operating in California (the > "nexus"), then charging a tax on that item is NOT a "sales tax." It is > much more like a tariff on goods entering California. > > (What else could it be? The sale is not happening at a store in > California, or even arguably at an out-of-state "branch" of a store in > California, there being no such store at all in California. Thus the > "tax" is really just a tariff or duty. Something specifically forbidden.) > > Of course, states like California get around _parts_ of this ruling when > people bring cars bought elsewhere into California: they require some > calculated amount of the effective sales tax, had the car been bought in > California, to be paid upon registration of the car. > > --Tim May From aw-confirm at ebay.com Sun Aug 5 12:00:56 2001 From: aw-confirm at ebay.com (aw-confirm at ebay.com) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 12:00:56 PDT Subject: Change password. Message-ID: <200108051900.f75J0uo14528@worf.ebay.com> Forgot your password? If you did not forget your password, please ignore this email. To choose a new password, please go to the URL below: (please use it exactly as is including all trailing fullstops) http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/pass/$1$18296$XBsLP3.HiFqhL/TJ5jitP/a This request was made from: IP address: 63.24.242.122 ISP host: 1cust122.tnt1.oberlin.oh.da.uu.net Thank you for using eBay! http://www.ebay.com From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sun Aug 5 10:07:34 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:07:34 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6D1A2A.26594.3C2D96@localhost> Message-ID: George: > > Look, we are just trying to envision what opponents are likely > to try. The > > outcome will depend on the facts. > > > > Are you sure it isn't more likely to depend on things that should be > completely irrelevant, say, what you look like? There was a hot > chick I used to work with who would tell me about all the times > she got pulled over and usually let off with a warning. She really > was a menace to the road, great body though. As I said, > I'm on nobody's side, I'm not recommending any particular course > of action, but the idea that you can help keep out of trouble with a > reasonable retention policy requires you to anticipate what > policy a judge considers to be reasonable, which in turn .... Bingo. Remember what Uni said about "not amused" judges? We should have just left it at that. ~Aimee From declan at well.com Sun Aug 5 09:29:43 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 12:29:43 -0400 Subject: Governors Seeking Internet Tax In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010805090708.038f79f8@pop3.lvcm.com> References: <20010805011321.A26294@cluebot.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20010804214156.03dd0770@pop3.lvcm.com> <3B6CA656.2C89501@ssz.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20010804214156.03dd0770@pop3.lvcm.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010805122814.02148100@mail.well.com> At 09:15 AM 8/5/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >So, they ARE asking Congress to try and circumvent that nasty 'ol Commerce >Clause. It should be interesting to see what Congress thinks it can >fashion th will pass SC muster. Actually, this may be one of the few areas -- actual interstate trade and taxes -- that come close to the meaning of the Commerce Clause. I suspect a challenge will have to be made on public policy grounds rather than constitutional ones. -Declan From measl at mfn.org Sun Aug 5 11:17:37 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:17:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Stranger than anything Rand ever imagined In-Reply-To: <200108051755.f75HtVx12078@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: > The mind boggles at what > lawyers have done to these united states. Time to fire up the ovens and > send them to the showers.) > > --Tim May Praise the lord, and pass the Zyklon-B! -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From pablo-escobar at hushmail.com Sun Aug 5 13:23:23 2001 From: pablo-escobar at hushmail.com (pablo-escobar at hushmail.com) Date: Sun Aug 5 13:23:23 PDT 2001 Subject: Stranger than anything Rand ever imagined Message-ID: <200108051321.f75DLlm51143@mailserver1a> At 10:54 AM 8/5/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >And there are the restrictions on what _crops_ a person may grow, even if never sells a single bushel, even a single peanut, on the alleged grounds that his act of growing a crop will affect what he and his family buy...and thus this affects the local Safeway store's business! Call it the "Suppression of Competition and Protection of Special Interests Ruling." (The usual sources, like Findlaw, have scads of references. This one is "Wickard v. Filburn.") > >(So, does this "open the door" for regulations on books which urge people to travel to New York instead of Iowa, on the grounds that these kinds of books "influence interstate commerce"? The mind boggles at what lawyers have done to these united states. Time to fire up the ovens and send them to the showers.) Si. The hour to create a case of the test we can eliminate policia then legisladores when they show for above. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From jamesd at echeque.com Sun Aug 5 13:32:37 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:32:37 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6CA289.7997.402C1D@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6D4AF5.23328.D44B8@localhost> -- James A. Donald: > > If one keeps records, and suddenly someone sues one, and THEN one > > starts shredding, yes, then one can get into trouble. If > > however, one shreds away indiscriminately, on a routine and > > regular schedule, one is in the clear. As a remailer operator > > said to the courts "Sorry, I do not keep > > records". > > > > Now if he had kept records, and then erased them on being > > summoned to the court, he would have had a problem. But because > > he erased them routinely, no problem. On 5 Aug 2001, at 5:03, Aimee Farr wrote: > If you read any of those cites and shep'd them, you will see there are > circumstances where > defendants didn't know the documents were relevant to a specific lawsuit. > There is support for the words "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" might NOT equivocate to: > "a lawsuit has been filed." Might equivocate to a big cloud of complicated fog. Probably will. In fact it already has. However there is a large and glaring gap between the legal advice that Black Unicorn is giving: telling us that routine regularly scheduled erasure and shredding is dreadfully unwise, and the practices of many leading CEOs, that routine regularly scheduled erasure and shredding without checking what it is that one is shredding (other than date, and broad category) is good practice and required. In particular it is common good practice to routinely erase all internal emails. This is a major obstacle to lawsuits, and is intended to be a major obstacle to lawsuits, and yet no one has been busted for it. If businesses can erase their email, then remailers can erase their logs, and I can publish thought crimes on freenet and alt.anonymous.messages, and you lot do not know shit from beans. Care to explain the obvious difference between good practice as explained by you lot, and the actual practice of good businesses? If a bunch of people claimed to be highly qualified astrophysicists, and explained that for all sorts of very complicated astrophysical reasons the sun actually rose in the north and set in the south, I would be more inclined to believe that they were not highly qualified astrophysicists, than to believe that the sun rose in the North. If shredding, erasure, and just plain not keeping logs is legal, then the cypherpunk program is legal, and remailers are legal. And it is as obvious that the cypherpunk program is, as yet, so far, still legal, as it is obvious that the sun rises in the East. Yet Black Unicorn has been telling us in no uncertain terms that it is illegal. The most recent post of his to which I replied rejected the entire cypherpunk program and standard business practice as foolish and unwise. They are going to bust Bill Gates for erasing email before they bust me. Why is Black Unicorn telling me I should be so terrified of the courts that I must abandon the cypherpunk program, for a threat that has as yet not been made, let alone carried out even against high profile targets? > o email = most say a few weeks, unless it is a complaint, etc. And what most are saying, is glaringly inconsistent with what black unicorn is saying. > It's not so simple as many think. It's document specific. But if it is document specific, and the remailer does not read the documents, and could not be expected to know their relevance if he did, then Dark Unicorn's most recent post on remailers is obviously full of shit. The remailers cannot possibly be document specific, nor can Freenet. Aimee's favorite citation, repeated yet again. > ...First, the court should determine whether Remington's record retention > policy is reasonable considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the > relevant documents. These cites are all "on the one hand this, on the other hand that". No one has been busted specifically for a policy of routine document erasure. When Bill Gates is in jail being sodomized, then we will worry. This alleged law is not a law, or an existing court practice -- it is an opinion held by some people that has never been given real substantial effect. If it is ever given real effect, they are not going to start with us. They are going to start with the deep pockets. Aimees favorite citation continued > Finally, the court should determine whether the document > retention policy was instituted in bad faith. Gumbs v. > International Harvester, Inc., 718 F.2d 88, 96 (3rd Cir. 1983) > ("no unfavorable inference arises when the circumstances > indicate that the document or article in question has been lost > or accidentally destroyed, or where the failure to produce it > is otherwise properly accounted for."); Boyd v. Ozark Air > Lines, Inc., 568 F.2d 50, 53 (8th Cir. 1977) ("We recognize, > however, that the destruction of business records may be > sufficient to raise an unfavorable inference."). More "on the one hand this, on the other hand that" fog. Everyone knows why Microsoft's email destruction policy was implemented. If that is not "bad faith", what is? Show us some busts. Opinions are worth two cents a bale, but only after they have been baled. You can find an opinion for anything. Nothing is going to stop big business, small business, and individuals from destroying records except some busts -- quite a lot of busts with quite drastic penalties, penalties specifically imposed for routine record destruction, penalties explicitly intended to put an end to the routine and widespread practice of routine record destruction. No such busts so far -- therefore you are full of shit. More from the cite: > "Such a presumption or inference arises, > however, only when the spoliation or destruction [of evidence] was > intentional, and indicates fraud and ... This is, more or less, the guilty mind criterion. Routine destruction of remailer logs, publication on irretrievable media, and the like, really are not evidence of the guilty mind. Your cites are just rambles, each paragraph contradicts the next. As I said, no busts, therefore it is legal. > In some high-risk endeavors, opponents may argue that destruction or > purposeful non-retention = fraudulent intent. I don't think Remington REALLY > wanted to keep those complaints 3 years, James. Ask yourself why they did > even that. I rather think they did want to keep them three years. Compared to the typical reach of a lawsuit three years is quite short. If they had made it three hours instead of three years, it would not make a large difference to lawsuits, but it would have made a large difference to customer satisfaction. Throwing away complaint letters while they are still hot would indeed be obvious evidence of a guilty mind, obvious evidence of the validity of the complaints. However throwing them away after three years still sticks a big spoke in the wheels of class action lawsuits. Therefore it is legal to purge documents in ways that stick a big spoke in the wheels of forthcoming lawsuits, even when they are complaints, even when such lawsuits are obviously coming down the road, as they were in the Remington case. > Look, we are just trying to envision what opponents are likely to try. No. You are spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This battle, if it is ever fought, will be fought by people with big pockets. The courts will go after them first. If they lose, then AFTER that loss, remailers will feel a cold breeze on their testicles. Remailers and freenet and the like do not need to think about this until the battle is ending. The battle has not yet even begun, and I rather doubt that it will. > > You guys keep telling us we are not allowed to routinely purge > > records, > You keep speaking in absolutes. It's more complicated. No it is not complicated. If I search through my records and destroy certain specific records for certain complicated specific reasons, then those specific reasons can make life really complicated, depending on what those reasons are. If I say "That heap looks pretty dusty -- I guess I am not likely to need it", and chuck it in the bin because it is old, then because I throw it away for uncomplicated reasons, life does not get complicated. The question is simple: Do we have to keep all records the state might someday decide it wants to look at, or don't we? The answer is, we certainly do not. If we did, Remington would have been busted for their three year policy on complaints. Your citations just do not say what you claim they say. If someone sends me a letter threatening a to sue me, that is complicated. If my remailer processes a letter carrying a threat, a letter whose context and relevance I do not know or care about, a letter I do not read, and cannot be expected to read, that is quite uncomplicated. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG SZ8uMmAagPtMjH/9KeW8Mr9dPI3GveAS7TT4f/BY 43buY0nX7fSyJcCJxKpCaWgjxtpYdzR37u1fXXxIA From jamesd at echeque.com Sun Aug 5 13:32:37 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:32:37 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: <200108050424.f754Oax09164@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B6D4AF5.29007.D44C2@localhost> -- On 5 Aug 2001, at 16:07, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > AFAICS, it's likely a matter of priorities -- currently anonymity does not > pose a significant threat to governments. If that changes, the heat will > intensify, possibly to a point where means currently unimaginable could be > employed (e.g. national firewalls, regulation of nonconduct, creative > interpretation of laws on criminal collaboration, RICO, whathaveyou). The great firewall of China is somewhat effective, but by no means as effective as the chinese government would wish. The Russian equivalent is dead in the water. We do not have magic armor, but, governments do not have magic bullets either. To effectively repress, a government must be lawless. But a lawless government risks either disintegrating, as in post 1990 Russia, or succumbing to a cult of personality, as in the 1930s russia. A bunch of very old men currently keep china wobbling between these two extremes. When they drop dead, it will wobble one way or the other. Since the cult of personality has proved so deadly to government officials everywhere, they will probably choose the safer course of wobbling in the direction of disintegration. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG wew6MK1X7o6m4yRVDWkDvm7xAIqUnFwOPMyVMxMN 4ljKTpl8pf+CmhVEGgTUk33zfdnbgqg7Qs9heEWDz From jamesd at echeque.com Sun Aug 5 13:32:37 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:32:37 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B6D4AF5.31965.D44CC@localhost> -- On 5 Aug 2001, at 14:17, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > "Conforming to international treaties" *is* the hip way to circumvent the > constitution. As we recently saw in the money laundering treaties, different nations have rather different interpretations of international treaties. Some time back the US government, in flagrant defiance of the first amendment, but in accord with international treaties, prohibited the internet publication of drug manufacture information. Sites were closed down, only to pop up again in different jurisdictions. The sites were simply zipped up, the zip files floated around a while, then found new homes. If they cannot stop sites that give information on manufacture of drugs, they have lost and we have won. Similarly, as I pointed out to some nutty nyms who claim to be lawyers, if they cannot shut down child pornography on usenet, they cannot shut down alt.anonymous.messages. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG zW4bx+3/mu5osmKYwXYF48PIBXO/A5OJWaqVupwo 43nVaMDSSAYnIC9+/uyWJJWEH4c+OUEMW0CZ8sYL8 From Jaws3kidz at aol.com Sun Aug 5 11:11:12 2001 From: Jaws3kidz at aol.com (Jaws3kidz at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 14:11:12 EDT Subject: Funny Money Message-ID: Hey Dude, What's up I can really give you a lot more info and insight on funny money from the interpol to the Iranians and Cubans I've dealt with here in Miami. My e-mail is mm33176 at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 266 bytes Desc: not available URL: From decoy at iki.fi Sun Aug 5 04:17:17 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 14:17:17 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >>So what? A move by the g8 to protect the "global infrastructure" >>of the Internet, (polspeak for protecting their ability to control >>what the sheep think) followed by laws passed in individual countries, >>would force remops to operate solely in "rogue states", and messages >>to and from them could be screened out pretty simply. > >Handwaving. The First Amendment will not likely be abandoned because >some Marxists in France concluded that there should be limitations on >what people mail to other people. "Conforming to international treaties" *is* the hip way to circumvent the constitution. The latest copyright term extension gives a fine example -- conformance being used as a reason to walk over the concept of copyrights as being granted for "limited times". All you need to gut an amendment is widespread hysteria/stupidity. Drug enforcement works on the former, 1A exceptions for commercial and sexual speech the latter. Or just interpret existing law creatively, e.g. bring spoliation charges against remailer operators. If people are worked up enough, nobody will object to bringing those nasty Osama collaborators to the ground. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From jamesd at echeque.com Sun Aug 5 14:30:39 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 14:30:39 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B6D588F.23783.4262C9@localhost> -- On 5 Aug 2001, at 5:07, Aimee Farr wrote: > If you read any of those cites and shep'd them, you will see > there are circumstances where defendants didn't know the > documents were relevant to a specific lawsuit. That summary of those cases seems misleading to me. You yourself have acknowledged that standard best practice legal advice is to routinely purge all internal email after a few weeks. That does not sound not compatible with your summary above of those citations, and it is incompatible with the positions taken by Sandy and Black Unicorn. Most of the postings issued by you three, particularly those issued by Black Unicorn, sound to me as if they were issued in ignorance of the standard and legally recommended practice, that you were unaware of standard best practice on the topic on which you were posting. To repeat: If it is legal to routinely purge all internal email, it is legal to publish thoughtcrimes on freenet, legal for remailer operators to keep no logs. If it ever becomes illegal, the lawyers will go looking for records of deep pockets first, and go after the remailer operators later. We do not have to worry about mandatory remailer logs, until after the lawyers have successfully enforced mandatory recording of all indications of deep pockets. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG rz25ERk2AhUYlyVa+bptsmwFk4GPnsFcuOKIu4CG 4FGjwWSSPJFC3LQUmXNIITgeThxTqDx73aiC1gwaT From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 5 15:36:56 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:36:56 -0700 Subject: Remailer logs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108052240.f75MeFx13267@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 03:01 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: > Yes. Unless it is of special relevance. For example: > > Dear company: > > I just wanted to write you and tell you that the microwave that I bought > from you exploded. Thought you should know. Nobody was hurt, thank > goodness! > Maybe something is wrong with it? > > Thanks, > > Mrs. Smith > > The above wouldn't just be any old email now would it? Which is why important letters and notifications which may be relevant in some future case are almost always sent via registered mail, served in person, and so on. \ There is a big difference between a legal notice like "You are hereby notified of a possible defect in your Whackomatic product and copies of this letter have been sent to your legal offices and with the Better Business Bureau." and "Hey, I hope you kept that e-mail I sent you last year." LIkewise, communications are frequently channeled to specific addresses ("Send product warranty queries to ....") and are even discarded ("Unsolicited manuscripts and letters sent to Big Studio, Inc. are destroyed"). Now, is there some _specific_ legislation requiring either these kinds of "records retention" or "manuscript submission" policies? Maybe in some cases, by direct legislation. Certainly not for remailer logs, which is the point James and others of us have been making. Is there a _custom_ for some of these policies? Sure. Lawyers probably keep most letters which come to them...but probably don't worry about e-mail too much. (I used to correspond with several lawyers. Should I expect that they kept my e-mails? Of course not.) What about the role of _technology_? With the technology of formal letters, printed on formal legal department letterheads, and with filing cabinets in offices across the land, the _technology_ fits with the _custom_ of filing every letter received. With e-mail, which is ephemeral, subject to inadvertent erasure (hit the wrong key and it's gone), subject to erasure or misfiling during housecleaning, hard disk crashes, reformattings, or just plain switching mailers, there is much less expectation of permanence. (By the way, I am using the "three legs" of LAW, CUSTOM, and TECHNOLOGY, as outlined by Larry Lessig several years ago (and presumably recapped in his recent book, "Code," which I haven't yet picked up except in bookstores. I don't agree with Lessig's conclusions, but I felt his analysis was a useful one. I wrote a couple of articles on how his model fits with my own models (very similar, though I don't claim Lessig was influenced by me, even though we overlapped for a while on Cyberia).) Getting back to remailer logs for a moment, why is a remailer any more responsible for keeping detailed logs than a person like me is for keeping logs of what mail I received, whom I bounced it over to, and so on? The fact that Robb London might be "very interested" in where I bounced Jim Bell's mail to does NOT mean I had any obligation to keep detailed records, presumably in a form not subject to erasure or loss through routine misadventures of the computer kind. And as James keeps ragging about, if they haven't gone after Microsoft for "spoliating" as MS got rid of old e-mail and limited employee planners and notes, they surely can't go after the operator of the noisebox remailer, for example, for failing to keep logs of all traffic from May 19, 1999 to May 24, 1999. (And, by the way, conventional remailer logs, it would seem, would be of incoming traffic and outgoing traffic. The guts of the "request-remailing-to" operation, in either Cypherpunks Type I or 1 or Mixmaster remailers happens inside another program. It would take extra twiddling of the logging software to actually add a report saying "Incoming message #71734 was pooled and was sent out 23 minutes and 18 seconds later as outgoing message #70219." Standard Unix or Linux logs should not be very helpful, and keeping them is not required by any current statute. (CALEA may have stuff in it about logs, but the LEAs have yet to push in this direction. Certainly an ex post facto laws penalizing someone for violating CALEA when no CALEA standards/precedents are established would be a reach.) --Tim May From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Sun Aug 5 00:41:26 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:41:26 +0800 Subject: DR Message-ID: <200108051036.f75AaVJ00957@rigel.cyberpass.net> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DR.?????CV.doc.bat Type: application/mixed Size: 204 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Sun Aug 5 00:42:31 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:42:31 +0800 Subject: DR Message-ID: <200108050927.EAA08870@einstein.ssz.com> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DR.?????CV.doc.bat Type: application/mixed Size: 204 bytes Desc: not available URL: From decoy at iki.fi Sun Aug 5 06:07:14 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 16:07:14 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <200108050424.f754Oax09164@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >Entrance and exit mixes can easily be set to be Usenet or other Net-based >public posting and reading places. Kind of hard for the U.S.G. or the >F.S.U. to shut down a newsgroup replicated across the world in many >places. Yes, broadcasts and mixnets have different tolerance to different kinds of attacks, with benefits of synergy. But saying they're unassailable simply because they work fine, now, is short-sighted. AFAICS, it's likely a matter of priorities -- currently anonymity does not pose a significant threat to governments. If that changes, the heat will intensify, possibly to a point where means currently unimaginable could be employed (e.g. national firewalls, regulation of nonconduct, creative interpretation of laws on criminal collaboration, RICO, whathaveyou). Besides, what happens in the US currently has a lot of weight in the global Internet. Causing a netsplit between the US and the rest of the world is enough to severely harm most online services out there. Criminalization of online conduct in the US may be all it takes to make an anonymous online economy too cumbersome to hack. >I see no particular reason why it will suddenly become cheap ("repeat ad >nauseum") for lawyers to shut down tens of thousands of Web sites, >publishers, mailing lists, message pools, and Democracy Walls. For remailers, mandatory filtering at the ISP level? For broadcasts, you track all the receivers and correlate to arrive at likely suspects. >Especially, by the way, if those entry and exit sites are in other >countries. If they can pass CALEA, they probably could force internet exchanges to filter remailer traffic, given favorable public opinion. All you need is a view of anonymity proponents as anti-state anarchists intent on protecting known dangerous criminals (thus, collaboration), and a couple of high profile trials where remailers successfully protect the identity of terrorists or child molesters. The fuss about Osama bin Laden and encryption/stego might well be the first step in such a campaign. As for foreign remailers, a number of governments might be pliable enough to overlook US originated DoS attacks on them after having been convinced that anonymity is a real threat not only to the US, but to each and every nation state. Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 5 16:22:50 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 16:22:50 -0700 Subject: Remailer logs In-Reply-To: <200108052240.f75MeFx13267@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <200108052323.f75NNEx13407@slack.lne.com> To add to what I said earlier: On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 03:36 PM, Tim May wrote: > On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 03:01 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: >> Yes. Unless it is of special relevance. For example: >> >> Dear company: >> >> I just wanted to write you and tell you that the microwave that I >> bought >> from you exploded. Thought you should know. Nobody was hurt, thank >> goodness! >> Maybe something is wrong with it? >> .... >> The above wouldn't just be any old email now would it? > > Which is why important letters and notifications which may be relevant > in some future case are almost always sent via registered mail, served > in person, and so on. \ > > There is a big difference between a legal notice like "You are hereby > notified of a possible defect in your Whackomatic product and copies of > this letter have been sent to your legal offices and with the Better > Business Bureau." and "Hey, I hope you kept that e-mail I sent you last > year." By the way, my insurance companies, financial advisors, and real estate agents will NOT take e-mail orders or instructions. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, for example, will NOT take orders or instructions in e-mail. Reasons for this are obvious. Now someday there may be a more robust _technology_ for ensuring receipt of e-mail (return receipts and digital signatures go a long way, of course, toward this end). This may then change the _customs_ of users of e-mail. And then the _law_ may evolve to fit these changes in technology and custom. But this is now. --Tim May From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sun Aug 5 15:01:26 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:01:26 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6D588F.23783.4262C9@localhost> Message-ID: James wrote: -- > On 5 Aug 2001, at 5:07, Aimee Farr wrote: > > If you read any of those cites and shep'd them, you will see > > there are circumstances where defendants didn't know the > > documents were relevant to a specific lawsuit. > > That summary of those cases seems misleading to me. Obviously. James, you are like a snappin' turtle. You just won't let go. I could move you with a stick. > You yourself have acknowledged that standard best practice legal > advice is to routinely purge all internal email after a few weeks. Yes. Unless it is of special relevance. For example: Dear company: I just wanted to write you and tell you that the microwave that I bought from you exploded. Thought you should know. Nobody was hurt, thank goodness! Maybe something is wrong with it? Thanks, Mrs. Smith The above wouldn't just be any old email now would it? > That does not sound not compatible with your summary above of > those citations, and it is incompatible with the positions taken by > Sandy and Black Unicorn. No. > Most of the postings issued by you three, particularly those issued > by Black Unicorn, sound to me as if they were issued in ignorance > of the standard and legally recommended practice, that you were > unaware of standard best practice on the topic on which you were > posting. No. > To repeat: If it is legal to routinely purge all internal email, it is > legal to publish thoughtcrimes on freenet, legal for remailer > operators to keep no logs. If A is L, than B and C are L? > If it ever becomes illegal, the lawyers will go looking for records of > deep pockets first, and go after the remailer operators later. We > do not have to worry about mandatory remailer logs, until after the > lawyers have successfully enforced mandatory recording of all > indications of deep pockets. Somebody give me a stick! James, truly, I see the point you are trying to make and the logic you are trying to apply. We will see what the courts do. ~Aimee From ravage at ssz.com Sun Aug 5 15:31:01 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 17:31:01 -0500 Subject: CNN.com - Nader urges 'civic power' at big rally - August 5, 2001 Message-ID: <3B6DC925.A3AD221@ssz.com> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/05/nader.rally.ap/index.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jamesd at echeque.com Sun Aug 5 18:06:23 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:06:23 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6D588F.23783.4262C9@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6D8B1F.16520.107E827@localhost> -- James A. Donald: > > You yourself have acknowledged that standard best practice legal > > advice is to routinely purge all internal email after a few weeks. Aimee Farr wrote: > Yes. Unless it is of special relevance. If one is operating a company, the guy who purges the email on the mail server is not expected to know or care what is of special relevance -- he just purges it by date. If he knew what he was purging, and chose to purge one thing and not another, his decisions would cause no end of legal troubles. The whole point and purpose of the purging is to ensure that those inconvenient emails that so embarrassed Bill Gates will be GONE, emails that most certainly were of special relevance. The whole point and purpose of Microsoft's new policy on email is to avoid a rerun of the Bill Gates courtroom saga, so that there will be no inconvenient specially relevant emails about Windows XP in the way that there were highly inconvenient specially relevant emails about Windows Explorer. And if it is legitimate for companies to avoid the Bill Gates experience by purging mail files, then it is legitimate for them to avoid the Bill Gates experience by encrypting with perfect forward secrecy, and all the rest of the cypherpunks program is similarly legitimate. > Dear company: > > I just wanted to write you and tell you that the microwave that I bought > from you exploded. Thought you should know. Nobody was hurt, thank goodness! > Maybe something is wrong with it? > > Thanks, > > Mrs. Smith > > The above wouldn't just be any old email now would it? Defence: "I am sorry. All our email is routinely deleted. All complaints corresponding to a single bug are summarized into a single entry in our bug database, and we have given you that entry. This alleged message would appear to correspond to bug Microwave#38 in our bug database, which we kept and gave you as part of your discovery process, giving you an accurate good faith account of all our knowledge of problems with our product. You will notice that our bug fix database records our prompt and effective resolution of the problem to which this alleged email appears to refer. " Accuser: "You threw away inconvenient evidence!" Defence: "No we did not. We kept it for some time, then recorded it in summary form, to render a large number of events as a small number of intelligible issues. This enabled our management to handle what would otherwise be an intolerable flood of information, and now it is producing similar benefits in this courtroom, since going through each complaint separately in the court room would have run up tens of millions of dollars in legal fees, which was of course your intention." Do you think this conversation is going to get the company in trouble for destroying evidence? I very much doubt it. (Well it would if defense spoke so plainly, but like Herodotus, I represent defence saying what he means, instead of what he would actually say.) More importantly that internal email from the VP of engineering that says "About the damned exploding microwave -- only customers that are so moronic they leave forks in the microwave and then blithely ignore the sparks, smoke, and balls of flame for the next ten minutes get that problem -- serve the damned idiots right" will never appear in the evidence, even though it is a lot more specially relevant than any one letter of complaint about an exploding microwave oven. James A. Donald: > > Most of the postings issued by you three, particularly those issued > > by Black Unicorn, sound to me as if they were issued in ignorance > > of the standard and legally recommended practice, that you were > > unaware of standard best practice on the topic on which you were > > posting. Aimee > No. I am unable to reconcile Black Unicorn's recent post, where he denounces almost the entire cypherpunk program as illegal by current legal standards and a manifestation of foolish ignorance of the law and obstinate refusal to take his wise advice, with the conjecture that Black Unicorn is aware of current recommended best practice in record keeping. If current best legal practice in record keeping would delete those inconvenient emails that so embarrassed Bill Gates, then current best legal practice in communication would encrypt them with perfect forward secrecy if they had to go outside the Microsoft LAN. If current best legal practice is to promptly purge old emails whose significance no one knows or cares, then current best legal practice is for remailers to routinely purge their logs. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG iNKRBgKrV7axkgj4JHrXK/1gfRpclWOQfEDw2/RU 4OSuu1OR1f+CYF/jeQpbgk6WEMCzQItifTJZeqiHV From unicorn at schloss.li Sun Aug 5 18:32:49 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:32:49 -0700 Subject: Remailer logs References: <200108052240.f75MeFx13267@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <003c01c11e17$b4b95350$d2972040@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" To: Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 3:36 PM Subject: Remailer logs > On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 03:01 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: > > Yes. Unless it is of special relevance. For example: > > > > Dear company: > > > > I just wanted to write you and tell you that the microwave that I bought > > from you exploded. Thought you should know. Nobody was hurt, thank > > goodness! > > Maybe something is wrong with it? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mrs. Smith > > > > The above wouldn't just be any old email now would it? Mr. May replies: > Which is why important letters and notifications which may be relevant > in some future case are almost always sent via registered mail, served > in person, and so on. ...and why some lawsuit attracting materials are sent via remailers. And this I think is the point. > There is a big difference between a legal notice like "You are hereby > notified of a possible defect in your Whackomatic product and copies of > this letter have been sent to your legal offices and with the Better > Business Bureau." and "Hey, I hope you kept that e-mail I sent you last > year." Yes, but in two of the cases I cited no such notice was sent or required. Moreover, the remailer operator is in a much _worse_ position with respect to this issue. How can he or she know which emails are of potential probative value to a court? The remailer operator who gets a _single_ complaint arguably should have to retain _all_ logs and correspondence indefinitely after that and archive it as he/she is on notice that one or more might be infringing and he/she has no ability to distinguish which one will be important- at least under this argument. > LIkewise, communications are frequently channeled to specific addresses > ("Send product warranty queries to ....") and are even discarded > ("Unsolicited manuscripts and letters sent to Big Studio, Inc. are > destroyed"). But now we are talking about communications sent through third parties with much more established content immunity (postal service, common carriers, etc.) Remailers don't seem to be at that level yet. We are also moving the discussion to the potential liability of a company who receives these things, a direct party to the suit, rather than where it was originally, on the potential liability of a third party for "spoliation" of "evidence" they wittingly or unwittingly handled. Making comparisons to Big Studio, Inc. and such avoid the basic point I think. Big Studio, Inc. for one- has a much more legitimate set of reasons to have a _document_ destruction policy. Storage costs and etc. Now, Big Studio, Inc. has even _less_ reason to destroy email. It's easy to archive, bits don't weigh much (anything), it's cheap compared to paper storage and CD-Rs have a good shelf life (15-50 years I think I once read? Your mileage may vary). What compelling reason does Bob's garage housed remailer service have to destroy information related to the content that passes his wires. The first and most obvious answer is the exact and stated purpose of the remailer- obscuring information about that content's source, destination and etc. This is the problem. Impossible to deal with? No. Criminal? Maybe, but the circumstances would have to be extreme. Potentially the subject of a costly civil suit? Potentially. Potentially subjecting the remailer operator to subpoena or other nonsense? Definitely. Already happened. It's like someone (Mr. May?) once said about y2k: It's not the odds, it's the stakes. A little insurance goes a long way. With respect to third parties it's clear that liability for spoliation can exist. It's also clear that that can be based on mere negligence. It's also clear that there need be no proceeding in progress. The third party can be entirely ignorant of a potential case. All of this is worrisome. > Now, is there some _specific_ legislation requiring either these kinds > of "records retention" or "manuscript submission" policies? Maybe in > some cases, by direct legislation. Certainly not for remailer logs, > which is the point James and others of us have been making. Specific legislation? Not needed. Of course the first thing we look for is specific legislation- that makes the job easy. The reality is that there is rarely a statute that speaks directly to a new issue like the liability of remailers for "infringing" content or thought crime distribution. If there were lawyers wouldn't be needed. (That would be a nice change). On the flip side it means that prosecutors, in the absence of a specific statute, are going to stretch what they have and that legislators (trying to keep up with the lack of specific statutes for technical issues) will write nice broad laws to keep the prosecutors (which they once probably were themselves) happy. Also remember, that criminal liability (which would be covered by statute) isn't necessarily all we are worried about. For the graduate student/salaryman remailer operator civil liability would be much the same problem, if not worse since if it got to that point the powers driving civil litigation would probably be better funded and incented than would the feds _and_ in some cases (copyright, DMCA, Antitrust etc.) will _also_ have the feds to play with. Combine copyright with DMCA, Adobe and a remailer and you have something potentially really ugly for a remailer operator. He/she might not even be the focus of the suit, but get steamrolled in the process- typical. > Is there a _custom_ for some of these policies? Sure. Lawyers probably > keep most letters which come to them...but probably don't worry about > e-mail too much. (I used to correspond with several lawyers. Should I > expect that they kept my e-mails? Of course not.) Well, given that there are at least 3 examples I know of where e-mail destruction (even in Microsoft's case where it was made to look "routine" and linked with a newly developed policy) was used successfully to impose sanctions or modify jury instructions I think there is ample precedent for concern. Also, as I've pointed out, destruction policies do help some, but not all _that_ much and the only reason they help is because the large company has a legitimate reason for the policies (storage costs, maintenance costs, sorting costs- mostly costs). Again, Bob's remailing service isn't going to have that argument (of course the battle of the experts might ensue where Bob, at his own expense and with the $67.50 legal defense fund raised by the cypherpunks hires Mr. Trei or someone similar to testify about how these are normal and best practices- but I'd be surprised if that made a whole lot of difference). Let's just try to step out of techno-think here for a second. If you tell joe sixpack that Bob is running a service that strips off the headers of email for the purposes of rendering the sender anonymous (not to mention all the other things mixmaster does far beyond this simple measure) and that Bob not only full well knew this but fully intended to provide this service- add to that the fact that it would be pretty easy to show that remailer operators knew (or should have known) that their service was highly likely to attract illicit or otherwise litigation attracting content (this is the point right?)- I think it's a pretty safe bet joe sixpack is going to nod his head a lot at the prosecutor despite the objections of all these young whipper-snapper techno-weenies making clever "but it's not REALLY destroying the data, its just making it totally inaccessible for 900 years without the right key" arguments. Now that's just joe sixpack. I haven't even gotten to thinking much about what a judge will think of what the prosecution will inevitably call an "evidence destruction engine." Here's how I might play this out as a prosecutor: Mr. Smith, you run a service called the "nobody" mixmaster remailer? And this service destroys identifying information from incoming electronic mail before passing it on to the next destination? So the purpose of this service is to mask the identity of the sender? If say, I wanted to send a death threat, this would mask my identity fairly well? I could probably get away with that then, couldn't I? The police would be powerless? The FBI? Indeed, your service been carefully designed with that kind of threat model in mind? And are you aware of any legal proceedings involving other remailers? Are you aware of a similar service offered called the "Free Zone at blah at blah.net? So you aren't aware of the legal complications involving that remailer and the Church of Scientology? Your honor, I'd like to introduce Exhibit D, conversations on a mailing list discussing the design of the mixmaster remailer in which the designers and other participants discuss mixmaster remailer use in deterring legitimate law enforcement and civil investigations and the Scientology incident specifically. I'd also like to introduce Exhibit E, a list of the email addresses of recipients on that list during these discussions. If the witness could please read line 453, highlighted on the sheet there. Is that your email address? Does that refresh your memory, you _were_ on this mailing list during these discussions weren't you? So you were aware of these design criteria, to deny identifying evidence to lawful authorities or civil litigants? Excuse me, to provide the users with.... total anonyminity. I'm sorry. Mr. Smith, do you charge for users of the remailer? So is it safe to say that you don't intent to profit from this service? Then your motivation for running the service is... to help people destroy evidence then? Ok, sorry your honor, withdrawn. Then your motivation for running this service is definitely not for profit? You're a good citizen, as it were? Yes, of course you are. You destroy all logs about users of the service, isn't that correct? Excuse me, you "fail to record" any information about users of the service? I'm confused. Someone sends an electronic mail to your service, it has a "reply to" or a "from" header on it when it arrives, correct? But before sending it on to its destination, you destroy this information, correct? Excuse me. Delete it. Whatever. I see. So people would use this service to mask their identity, if they didn't want to be responsible for the content they are sending perhaps? And someone committing a crime, something untraceable, they would be able to hide behind your service wouldn't they? But that is a risk of running the service yes? What about, say a drug deal? A death threat? Something libelous? So wouldn't it be safe to say that a reasonable person might expect some abuse of such a service by criminals? Isn't it true that you have an abuse at blah.net address to deal with this precise eventuality? So you expected there might be legal problems? blah blah blah Now, I've omitted the witnesses responses, the myriad of objections and such that such an exchange would certainly create, but I think it makes a point. Whatever the outcome of this exchange in terms of the record the 50+ year old gray haired Reagan appointee behind the bench and the idiots who couldn't figure out how to dodge jury duty are going to get a pretty distinct impression of this service. It just plain looks bad. This is what I have to keep pointing out. It doesn't _matter_ if its technically kosher. It just plain looks bad. I'd be surprised of some of the jury members didn't write their congressmen insisting a law be passed to rid us of this scourge of remailers after a clever prosecutor got to them. We need to work hard on making remailers look better in this kind of a scenario. Granted it's extreme, but that's how cypherpunks define their threat models- no? Overkill is our friend in security design, plus, it's usually pretty cheap to add 64 bits to a key. I've only thrown this example together using typical prosecutorial tricks (use of the word "mask" instead of hide, use of the word "destroy" instead of strip, work in a parade of horribles, etc. etc.) that came to me off the top of my head. Yes yes, armchair lawyers, I've lead the witness a few times and such to keep the space down, but I could get it all in with twice the space if I really wanted to. So could any good courtroom lawyer. I'm sure someone who had prepared carefully would be plenty more sophisticated about it, and run the witness into plenty more traps than I bothered to get into. > What about the role of _technology_? With the technology of formal > letters, printed on formal legal department letterheads, and with filing > cabinets in offices across the land, the _technology_ fits with the > _custom_ of filing every letter received. With e-mail, which is > ephemeral, subject to inadvertent erasure (hit the wrong key and it's > gone), subject to erasure or misfiling during housecleaning, hard disk > crashes, reformattings, or just plain switching mailers, there is much > less expectation of permanence. But that's going away slowly. The EPM, digital signatures, archival services, all of these things are moving towards permanence, not away from it. I can find ancient posts I forgot I even wrote from years back on google or anywhere else. I can't find any of the paper copies of papers I wrote from back then anymore in anything less than 2 hours of looking. I'd say digital technology is doing just fine in this regard. Sure, there's bit rot, but it's closely coming to be not much more significant than microfiche run, or paper mold, perhaps even less so with the introduction of cheap CD-R technologies and coming cheap DVD-R technologies. If anything the persistence of archives and search engines is having the reverse effect, one of the reasons I started using a nym in the first place, one of the reasons I continue to. Also, courts are constantly whining about the potential destruction of evidence in such a way that it's caused major erosions of the 4th. No-knock searches are primarily justified at the threat of lost evidence to the court. E-mail and electronic data is the ultimate threat for lost evidence. It takes just a power interruption to destroy all the information (read: evidence) on a poorly (properly?) designed system. Doesn't that make you wonder if eventually, over the next several years these sorts of things are going to be taken much more seriously? When there is no more "smoking memo" because the office is mostly paperless, the smoking e-mail is going to be the king of the Hollywood courtroom drama scene. Expect e-mail to get more, not less onerous for people handling it. [Good stuff about Lessig removed] > Getting back to remailer logs for a moment, why is a remailer any more > responsible for keeping detailed logs than a person like me is for > keeping logs of what mail I received, whom I bounced it over to, and so > on? Because the case is much easier to make that a remailer operator knew or should have known that there was the potential for content coming across his service to be the subject of a dispute. That's the whole point of the remailer. It shifts the risk and costs of investigation to the remailer operators, from the sender. It follows that in the efficient market the remailer operators are the best able to deal with that risk and those costs, hence their willingness to shoulder that burden. I think today that's not necessarily so and given that the risk of handling illicit information has geometrically increased over the last few years (DMCA etc. etc. ad nauseaum) it only follows that remailer operators should follow suit and augment their risk management efforts. The inescapable reality- despite all the window dressing we might put on them- is that remailers perform a single function- making email untraceable- from which a few purposes legitimate- free speech, recovery groups, human rights, whistleblowers- and illegitimate- libel, copyright violation, etc.- may stem. I'm going to take the liberty of pointing out (without taking a position one way or the other) that even the _legitimate_ purposes are somewhat at odds with the interests of courts and the judicial system. Specifically, someone admitting they have just bought and currently possess 2 grams of cocaine on narcotics anonymous and god if they aren't trying to resist using it if only their NA buddy would answer the phone- is a contemporaneous admission of a felony (to wit: possession of narcotics) in which a court has a legitimate interest in preserving the evidence for (whatever you think of drug laws or the jurisdictions of courts and etc.) Whistleblowers are probably in violation of an NDA somewhere. They are circumventing law for the "higher good." That "higher good" is generally going to be a matter of perspective and it will vary in its weighted importance depending on the individual. (One man's freedom fighter, another man's terrorist, etc.). Remailers are a "short circuit" of some of the really poor and unfortunate outcomes of all information being traceable and available to courts. (Insert discussion of importance of anonymity and its critical role in everything from political speech to the founding fathers, the federalist papers etc.) But let's be frank and recognize that not everyone, particularly non-cypherpunkish types, will appreciate that or consider that a "good thing"(tm). To these people a prosecutor's description of an "evidence destroying engine" is going to probably stick- even if it was objected right out of the record (which it may or may not have been) and the jury instructed to disregard it (which they may or may not have been). Some of the high end plaintiff's lawyers I've encountered and worked with will actually test their catch phrases ("evidence destroying engine") on focus groups to see what sticks- what they can slip in that will stay with jurors even if they can't read it in the record later. Sometimes they will do these things by adding in what they know about the jurors. GM and Hogan & Hartson were very good at this- using demographic information about the jury to tailor "objected away" comments to stick in the minds of mothers, single working professionals, etc. right to the end. > The fact that Robb London might be "very interested" in where I > bounced Jim Bell's mail to does NOT mean I had any obligation to keep > detailed records, presumably in a form not subject to erasure or loss > through routine misadventures of the computer kind. Depends on how you want to define obligation. Do you think a manufacturer of a product has an obligation to keep old design notes around for over a decade even when their attorney tells them they can toss em? Do you think a car dealer has an obligation to keep around every used car they ever get their hands on, instead of selling them, on the off chance they might be evidence in a suit? Do you think Microsoft has an obligation to keep every single email they ever sent just in case they one day get sued for Antitrust? I don't. Courts have all found some level of obligation (of varying severity/intensity) in these examples. I think they are all patently silly. I think they are bad law. Doesn't change the fact that they are precedent. The key factor in all these is that information a court wanted seemed to be in the possession or control of these parties at one time or another. A remailer operator, in my view, is much likelier to be in a position to handle such information, or be seen as a potential source of the information, than the same individual not running a remailer. > And as James keeps ragging about, if they haven't gone after Microsoft > for "spoliating" as MS got rid of old e-mail and limited employee > planners and notes, they surely can't go after the operator of the > noisebox remailer, for example, for failing to keep logs of all traffic > from May 19, 1999 to May 24, 1999. But they DID go after MS. And MS was almost sanctioned for it and it _was_ in the jury instructions. Remember also that Microsoft lost at trial. Moreover MS knew this was a potential problem and therefore specifically did _not_ have an email destruction policy in place before the suit- at odds with some of the fervent (and totally unsupported) claims by persons here that they did. They had a very aggressive e-mail _retention_ policy. As early as 1992 they asserted that all U.S. emails were preserved for fifteen (15) years. (!) See e.g.,: Los Angeles Times, November 5, 1998. See Also Generally: Wendy Goldman Rohm's outstanding book "Microsoft File: The Secret Case Against Bill Gates." Microsoft then instituted a far less inclusive "retention policy" (See Caldera v. Microsoft) and also an "upgrade policy." As it happened the "upgrades" didn't convert over the old mail. This was the subject of the potential sanctions and quite a to-do at the time. Mind you, these were all in the context of "routine" destruction. Since then I understand from third parties that they have changed their policy and now archived email is pretty much allowed to slowly rot and general disinterest paid to archives, no policy is actually implemented- much better looking really. Just careless, not malicious. > (And, by the way, conventional > remailer logs, it would seem, would be of incoming traffic and outgoing > traffic. The guts of the "request-remailing-to" operation, in either > Cypherpunks Type I or 1 or Mixmaster remailers happens inside another > program. It would take extra twiddling of the logging software to > actually add a report saying "Incoming message #71734 was pooled and was > sent out 23 minutes and 18 seconds later as outgoing message #70219." A compelling technical argument. Not so compelling without lots of expert testimony in court. _I_ agree with you, Mr. May. I'm pointing out that we need to find ways to give remailer operators more shielding than these kind of technical arguments- which courts do not traditionally have an easy time understanding. (Napster, MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc.). > Standard Unix or Linux logs should not be very helpful, and keeping them > is not required by any current statute. (CALEA may have stuff in it > about logs, but the LEAs have yet to push in this direction. Certainly > an ex post facto laws penalizing someone for violating CALEA when no > CALEA standards/precedents are established would be a reach.) Again, the fact that no statute exists hardly gets you out of the woods- none of the cases I cited rely on a statute to impose sanctions, except for the relevant rules of civil procedure and potentially obstruction of justice, which is such a catch-all that it can be applied here. (CALEA is dead at sea- and I hope it stays that way). Mr. May later comments: > By the way, my insurance companies, financial advisors, and real estate > agents will NOT take e-mail orders or instructions. Morgan Stanley Dean > Witter, for example, will NOT take orders or instructions in e-mail. My broker, banker, and financial advisors all will accept signed email instructions from me. I rarely give instructions this way, however- that's personal preference. They are not the only ones either. I know of three large trading operations that use email now to deal with large contract trades. (They used to use fax). Moreover they keep archives for 10 years of all their customer e-mails. From georgemw at speakeasy.net Sun Aug 5 18:38:17 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:38:17 -0700 Subject: The Curious Propsenity of Some Cypherpunks for (loud) Willful Ignorance. Was: Re: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6C5DD8.9538.2A11E03@localhost> References: <00ad01c11d2b$a02f53e0$d2972040@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B6D9299.8371.2F3621@localhost> On 4 Aug 2001, at 20:40, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > The only cite that could possibly refute my words above would be to cite someone being busted, >since the behavior you claim is illegal, the behavior that George >announces his intention to engage in, is routine in most well run >companies. Hey, wait a second, I never announced my intention to behave in any sort of behavior, I think maybe I suggested that certain actions might be appropriate in certain hypothetical contexts, but I was always at least that vague. As I said before, I'm on nobody's side here. If a lawyer type (BU or anyone else) wishes to post a list of specific recommended policies which he feels can minimize the risk of unpleasant contact with the judicial system, without compromising our own goals, I think it's wise to give such recommendations due consideration. In the specific case of remailer operators, keeping logs which could be used to identify the original senders of messages is clearly incompatible with the function of remailers, and any node keeping such logs should be considered cancerous. George > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > lZd4vAi2TTpp5GRW15mn1q+cyAFO0PJtAiYPT7GK > 4aBAZQL08uKxJdCdzB6Qq5wZagEOir8ecDvv5GFYB > > From georgemw at speakeasy.net Sun Aug 5 19:13:15 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 19:13:15 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6D1A2A.26594.3C2D96@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6D9ACB.1159.4F38E1@localhost> On 5 Aug 2001, at 12:07, Aimee Farr wrote: > George: > > > Look, we are just trying to envision what opponents are likely > > to try. The > > > outcome will depend on the facts. > > > > > > > Are you sure it isn't more likely to depend on things that should be > > completely irrelevant, say, what you look like? There was a hot > > chick I used to work with who would tell me about all the times > > she got pulled over and usually let off with a warning. She really > > was a menace to the road, great body though. As I said, > > I'm on nobody's side, I'm not recommending any particular course > > of action, but the idea that you can help keep out of trouble with a > > reasonable retention policy requires you to anticipate what > > policy a judge considers to be reasonable, which in turn > .... > > Bingo. > > Remember what Uni said about "not amused" judges? > > We should have just left it at that. > Maybe. Just so I'll know for sure, are you agreeing with me or ridiculing me? I'm well aware that my own style makes it difficult to tell when (if ever) I'm serious. I mean, I'm not stupid enough to actually tell a judge, "you're an insane, ignorant idiot, facts are wasted on you, so instead of getting a lawyer that actually knows something about this area of law, I went looking for the hottest chick I can find who is legally qualified to practice law in this district, in hopes that you'll drool over her and find in my favor". I'm not stupid enough to SAY it, but I just might be stupid enough to TRY it, if I felt that that was my best chance of reaching a favorable verdict. As for unamused judges, if I were to tell a judge that a judge is just a law student who gets to grade his own papers, do you think he'd say that's 1) not funny at all 2) maybe funny the first time, but this is like the 200th or 3) a real knee slapper? Thanks, George > ~Aimee From ravage at ssz.com Sun Aug 5 17:32:41 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 19:32:41 -0500 Subject: Yahoo - Code Red foreshadows evolution of cyber threats-experts Message-ID: <3B6DE5A9.AAE84BCA@ssz.com> http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010803/n0355024_2.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Sun Aug 5 18:16:13 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 20:16:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Yahoo - Code Red foreshadows evolution of cyber threats-experts In-Reply-To: <3B6DE5A9.AAE84BCA@ssz.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010803/n0355024_2.html I just love these reports! [the first] computer worm is believed to have been a program created in 1971 for air traffic controllers. Others followed in the 1980s at Xerox Corp.'s Palo Alto Research Center that were designed to post announcements and do heavy computing tasks at night when computers were idle. However, the worm experiments ended and a ``vaccine'' was written after one of the worms malfunctioned and crashed the systems. We have here yet another [new] definition of "worm" - any task that runs in the background... Jeeezzz! To top it off are the insane "damage estimates". 8 *B*illion dollars of damage??? In what universe? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Wilfred at Cryogen.com Sun Aug 5 18:30:51 2001 From: Wilfred at Cryogen.com (Wilfred L. Guerin) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 21:30:51 -0400 Subject: Yahoo - Code Red foreshadows evolution of cyber threats-experts In-Reply-To: <3B6DE5A9.AAE84BCA@ssz.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010805213051.014d4c10@ct2.nai.net> Well, if "code red", most easily identified by buffer string 'N' is now gone, care to address the issue of what this 'X' version is? -- Mine was a 'W' for obvious reasons, but was never released openly... What say the fed/M$/etc to reality now? -- Aside from the fact that 'X' is propogating far quicker... and far noisier... ... Im not even gonna bother addressing the issue... not worth the effort. -Wilfred L. Guerin Wilfred at Cryogen.com At 07:32 PM 8/5/2001 -0500, you wrote: >http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010803/n0355024_2.html >-- > > -- > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: > God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. > > B.A. Behrend > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > From Wilfred at Cryogen.com Sun Aug 5 18:49:15 2001 From: Wilfred at Cryogen.com (Wilfred L. Guerin) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 21:49:15 -0400 Subject: Code-I Moronics In-Reply-To: <3B6DE5A9.AAE84BCA@ssz.com> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010805214915.014d4c10@ct2.nai.net> [ Re: Code-255RandomCharacters. ] Ok, Time to fix this correctly. Someone already upgraded the old one, at least 2 others have been released recently... I personally do NOT tolerate M$ products to do anything relevant in my environment, so if anyone can help us out by answering a few questions, we will have to fix M$ the hard way... First, does the IIS server have any auto-update mechanism, if so, is this dictated by a moronic registry value, variable setting, etc? If not, what is the quickest and most effective method to update (by hand and manual access) an IIS server installation? Are there any alternate methods than [this] to update the IIS server software? Other Suggestions? [ Yes, creation of exe on disk or in process, get of file from m$, and running of it with /autobullshit would work too. ] ... Now, for any competant individual on this planet, you would already realize that the intent now, if i feel like wasting time fixing the rest of the world's incompetance, is to generate a forceful update and force all of these foolish IIS servers to reinstall the newer version (with only a few less problems)... At the rate of ideal propogation, this security breach and hastle can be remedied in full in less than a week. I would strongly suggest an open petition of inquiry as to why msoft is so incapable of basic software design. In this regard, I see at least 8 totally independant mechanisms of completing this process, however, because I personally do not tolerate moronics, I will not personally create additional code until someone gives me a good reason to do so. Unless, of course, everyone continues to fail, I may waste the time, in which case i will need an individual in a politicly and logisticly neutral environment who has a simple modem, to instantiate the fix. Inversely, if everything fails, we eliminate the servers from operation. A far better solution. All I shall do is provide operational code, if so desired. Im not up for the bullshit that will result from other antics. So, anyone care to fix the world, or shall we all play incompetant sheep as always and give no heed to the potential benefits of doing something relevant or competant for once in our lives? I leave you with this... -Wilfred L. Guerin Wilfred at Cryogen.com ... From drevil at sidereal.kz Sun Aug 5 15:28:01 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 5 Aug 2001 22:28:01 -0000 Subject: Stranger than anything Rand ever imagined In-Reply-To: <200108051321.f75DLlm51143@mailserver1a> (pablo-escobar@hushmail.com) References: <200108051321.f75DLlm51143@mailserver1a> Message-ID: <20010805222801.1398.qmail@sidereal.kz> > Si. The hour to create a case of the test we can eliminate policia > then legisladores when they show for above. And maybe also "Los Pepes", the CIA and Delta Force, eh, senor? From ravage at ssz.com Sun Aug 5 20:29:01 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 22:29:01 -0500 Subject: OPT: Slashdot | Describing The Web With Physics Message-ID: <3B6E0EFD.C43A75E1@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/science/01/08/05/2025232.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From PaulMerrill at acm.org Sun Aug 5 21:09:01 2001 From: PaulMerrill at acm.org (Paul H. Merrill) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 00:09:01 -0400 Subject: Code-I Moronics References: <3.0.3.32.20010805214915.014d4c10@ct2.nai.net> Message-ID: <3B6E185D.F7CE882D@ACM.Org> Being the whore that I am (actually, high priced call girl) I don't "not tolerate" anything. "Update" is an ambiguous word. One can download, from the Microsoft site, patches for damn near every piece of software that they sell or have sold in the recent past. Security patches (actually replacement files, not patches, for the most part) are a big favorite, though improved functionality is also popular. There are also third party products that can be bought. For instance, SecureIIS fixes known flaws and "fixes" buffer overflow exploits that haven't been found yet. (Yeah, it does what responsible programmers would have done in the first place.) Code-Red has not been successful against SecureIIS enhanced IIS. If there is some aspect not answered by this answer, feel free to ask a less ambiguous question. PHM -- Paul H. Merrill, MCNE, MCSE+I, CISSP PaulMerrill at ACM.Org "Wilfred L. Guerin" wrote: > > [ Re: Code-255RandomCharacters. ] > > Ok, Time to fix this correctly. > > Someone already upgraded the old one, at least 2 others have been released > recently... > > I personally do NOT tolerate M$ products to do anything relevant in my > environment, so if anyone can help us out by answering a few questions, we > will have to fix M$ the hard way... > > First, does the IIS server have any auto-update mechanism, if so, is this > dictated by a moronic registry value, variable setting, etc? > > If not, what is the quickest and most effective method to update (by hand > and manual access) an IIS server installation? > > Are there any alternate methods than [this] to update the IIS server software? > > Other Suggestions? > > [ Yes, creation of exe on disk or in process, get of file from m$, and > running of it with /autobullshit would work too. ] > > ... > > Now, for any competant individual on this planet, you would already realize > that the intent now, if i feel like wasting time fixing the rest of the > world's incompetance, is to generate a forceful update and force all of > these foolish IIS servers to reinstall the newer version (with only a few > less problems)... > > At the rate of ideal propogation, this security breach and hastle can be > remedied in full in less than a week. I would strongly suggest an open > petition of inquiry as to why msoft is so incapable of basic software design. > > In this regard, I see at least 8 totally independant mechanisms of > completing this process, however, because I personally do not tolerate > moronics, I will not personally create additional code until someone gives > me a good reason to do so. > > Unless, of course, everyone continues to fail, I may waste the time, in > which case i will need an individual in a politicly and logisticly neutral > environment who has a simple modem, to instantiate the fix. > > Inversely, if everything fails, we eliminate the servers from operation. A > far better solution. > > All I shall do is provide operational code, if so desired. Im not up for > the bullshit that will result from other antics. > > So, anyone care to fix the world, or shall we all play incompetant sheep as > always and give no heed to the potential benefits of doing something > relevant or competant for once in our lives? > > I leave you with this... > > -Wilfred L. Guerin > Wilfred at Cryogen.com > > ... -- Paul H. Merrill, MCNE, MCSE+I, CISSP PaulMerrill at ACM.Org From nobody at mailtraq.net Sun Aug 5 17:27:22 2001 From: nobody at mailtraq.net (Anonymous Remailer) Date: 6 Aug 2001 00:27:22 -0000 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. Message-ID: Ray Dillinger wrote: > Instead, they will attack the weakest point -- trying to drive > remailer operators out of business and thus destroy the > infrastructure you need. That is the threat model I'm concerned > about, and given that network monitoring is now automatable and > cheap, it is entirely do-able. Some people think this is happening now. Since the remailers don't do an authenticated handshake when they hand off traffic, an active attacker could simulate the receiving remailer. The sender thinks the message is sent and the receiver never knows it didn't arrive. Your threat model doesn't mean messages can't be sent, though. It just means messages between remailers have to travel over "sneaker net". A 20GB tape carries 1,953,125 messages. Let's say the senders will pay $0.10/each to have them carried over a damaged zone. That comes to $195,312.50. At 140g, that's $1,377.89/g, or over 20 times the value by weight of cocaine. Not only that, when you lose a mule you don't lose the commodity because it's just information. The managers just send another copy over. The problem is a little harder than the remailer problem. The links have greater latency, and each remailer won't be able to advertise its existence, so you need more sophisticated trust mechanisms. Similar problems have been solved before. There have been numerous illegal lotteries, for example. (See "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" for one.) These lotteries are amazing - these guys didn't even have strong authentication and they were (and are) able to handle large sums of money with virtually no complaints. One thing that can't be stopped right now is an underground newspaper. The editors can just sign each issue with gpg and distribute it on diskette. An easy way to solve your problem is to pay a fee to the editors to include encrypted messages. People have to give their friends the entire thing or they will be passing along unauthenticated copies. From jim_windle at eudoramail.com Sun Aug 5 22:22:48 2001 From: jim_windle at eudoramail.com (Jim Windle) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 01:22:48 -0400 Subject: "Space War" Message-ID: This weeks New York Times Sunday magazine has an article about "space war". With some interesting comments regarding surveillance, GPS, ASAT and NMD as well as the following line from an Air Force colonel which seems very indicative of the current thinking in Washington: "increasingly the problem is not another superpower, but a guy with a credit card" http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05SPACEWARS.html Jim Windle Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sun Aug 5 23:30:21 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:30:21 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6D8B1F.16520.107E827@localhost> Message-ID: James wrote: > I am unable to reconcile Black Unicorn's recent post, where he > denounces almost the entire cypherpunk program as illegal by No, he didn't. You extrapolate all of our comments out of context. > current legal standards and a manifestation of foolish ignorance > of the law and obstinate refusal to take his wise advice, with His advice about "not amusing" judges is most sage, I promise you. > the conjecture that Black Unicorn is aware of > current recommended best practice in record keeping. James, I am "no longer amused." ~Aimee From ushadbj at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 01:58:23 2001 From: ushadbj at yahoo.com (usha jain) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: govt of india tender for 250 BULLET PROOF VESTS-ESTIMATE45000US$ Message-ID: <20010806085823.86290.qmail@web13707.mail.yahoo.com> DEAR SIR, WE ARE ENGG CONSULTANTS AND WISH TO DRAW YOUR ATTEN TO ABOVE DEMAND FOR SECURITY FORCES.PRICE IS REASONABLE.SPECIFICATIONS IN DETAIL AVAILABLE IN BID DOCUMENTS.IF INTERESTED SEND AUTHORISATION IN OUR FAVOUR TO BUY DOCUMENTS ON YOUR BEHALF. BIDS SHALL OPEN ON 14-9-01 DB JAIN CONSULTANT SSG INVESTMENT PVT LTD NEW DEHLI 110029 TEL-91-11-6108254 AND6173296 FAX-91-11-6173298 --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 787 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aimee.farr at pobox.com Mon Aug 6 00:30:00 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 02:30:00 -0500 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <3B6D9ACB.1159.4F38E1@localhost> Message-ID: George, quoting me: > > Bingo. > > > > Remember what Uni said about "not amused" judges? > > > > We should have just left it at that. > > > > Maybe. Just so I'll know for sure, are you agreeing with me or > ridiculing me? I don't remember what was said at this point. :) My comments were good-natured, George. They always are. > I went looking for the > hottest chick I can find who is legally qualified to practice law in > this district, in hopes that you'll drool over her and find in my > favor". I'm not stupid enough to SAY it, but I just might > be stupid enough to TRY it, if I felt that that was my best chance of > reaching a favorable verdict. So, when you go to battle in the round, you want a good-looking gladiator to "distract" the lions. Maybe they won't eat her because she's pretty? Maybe they figure she's just "more tasty," and they will play with her a little...and bat her around.... before they pounce on her and gobble her up for being "a stupid twit." When lawyers go into chambers, it's not for a damn lap dance. If I could, I would file my teeth into sharp little pygmy points and graft Doberman pincher ears to my head. > As for unamused judges, if I were to tell a judge that a judge is > just a law student who gets to grade his own papers, do you > think he'd say that's > 1) not funny at all > 2) maybe funny the first time, but this is like the 200th > or > 3) a real knee slapper? Oh, their papers get graded... ~Aimee From bbal90210 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 03:18:57 2001 From: bbal90210 at yahoo.com (Shopping) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:18:57 -0700 Subject: Like Adult Shopping? Checkout These Hot Deals! Message-ID: <200108061018.f76AIvT24000@localhost.localdomain> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4427 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nobody at dizum.com Sun Aug 5 18:50:23 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:50:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Traceable infrastructure Message-ID: All the more reason to morph freenet/mojo to mix duties, maybe even create a worm version that gives no evidence of it's existence, other than some increase in traffic. What happened to melontrafficers.com BTW? Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such > widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, > IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical > broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the > groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the cypherpunks and such. -Declan From mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net Sun Aug 5 18:53:34 2001 From: mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net (Anonymous Coredump) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:53:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Traceable infrastructure Message-ID: All the more reason to morph freenet/mojo to mix duties, maybe even create a worm version that gives no evidence of it's existence, other than some increase in traffic. What happened to melontrafficers.com BTW? Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such > widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, > IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical > broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the > groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the cypherpunks and such. -Declan From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Sun Aug 5 12:54:21 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:54:21 +0800 Subject: DR Message-ID: <200108052249.f75MnFJ16901@rigel.cyberpass.net> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DR.?????CV.doc.bat Type: application/mixed Size: 204 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Sun Aug 5 12:55:25 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:55:25 +0800 Subject: DR Message-ID: <200108052022.PAA13089@einstein.ssz.com> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DR.?????CV.doc.bat Type: application/mixed Size: 204 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nobody at dizum.com Sun Aug 5 19:00:26 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 04:00:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Traceable infrastructure Message-ID: All the more reason to morph freenet/mojo to mix duties, maybe even create a worm version that gives no evidence of it's existence, other than some increase in traffic. What happened to melontrafficers.com BTW? hmm, for that matter, there seems to a number of remailers down -- what's going on? Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such > widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, > IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical > broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the > groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the cypherpunks and such. -Declan From FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com Mon Aug 6 01:24:34 2001 From: FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com (Your Membership Newsletter) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 04:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your Membership Exchange, #442 Message-ID: <20010806082434.7CB0723E98@rovdb001.roving.com> Your Membership Exchange, Issue #442 (August 6, 2001) ______________________________________________________ Your Membership Daily Exchange >>>>>>>>>>> Issue #442 <> 08-06-01 <<<<<<<<<<<< Your place to exchange ideas, ask questions, swap links, and share your skills! ______________________________________________________ Removal/Unsubscribe instructions are included at the bottom for members who do not wish to receive additional issues of this publication. ______________________________________________________ You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com ______________________________________________________ Today's Special Announcement: FREE WEB SITES for your Family, Groups, or Business. Create A PRESENCE ON THE INTERNET for FREE. SiteBlast FREE SOFTWARE walks you through the design process, one step at a time. With HUNDREDS OF PROFESSIONAL DESIGNS TO CHOOSE FROM you can customize the site to your taste, personality, or corporate image. http://www.siteblast.com/index_sb.asp?site=3&id=2084&name=CashPromotions ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ >> Q & A QUESTIONS: - Info on using Linux operation system? ANSWERS: - What can I do about my computer freezing? A. Lloyd-Rees: Computer freezing and a program to free up memory >> MEMBER SHOWCASES >> MEMBER *REVIEWS* - Sites to Review: #142, #143 & #144! - Three new sites to review! - Site #141 Reviewed! ______________________________________________________ >>>>>> QUESTIONS & ANSWERS <<<<<< Submit your questions & answers to MyInput at AEOpublishing.com QUESTIONS: From stephanie.key at etransmail2.com Mon Aug 6 05:04:56 2001 From: stephanie.key at etransmail2.com (Stephanie Key) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:04:56 -0700 Subject: Product Give Away - Take 5 ! Message-ID: <200108061204.f76C40Z18362@ak47.algebra.com> If you cannot view this message, please visit http://www.globalzon2k.com/news_vercheck1.htm G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. is sending this email to its subscribed users. You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com FREE Products shipped in Full Retail Packaging Pick up to 5 of each! Fortune. (149.99 value) DataScan (149.99 value) eXpressForms 2000 (129.99 value) TransForm Personal (59.99 value) VersaClips (19.99 value) ? Fortune: Relationship manager and addressbook ? DataScan: Business card and telephone directory scanning software ? ExpressForms 2000: Forms, Invitation and Greeting Card generator to publish on the Internet ? TransForm Personal: Scan and convert your paper forms into editable electronic forms in seconds. ? VersaClips: Accentuate your checks, website and documents with handcrafted background images. Click on any of the graphics above to add your FREE products! About VersaCheck 2001 VersaCheck enables businesses and individuals to create their own custom checks. All it takes is a desktop printer, blank paper and VersaCheck software! The checks look professional and are fully bankable. VersaCheck is available at most computer retail stores and online. It works with most accounting and personal finance software such as Quicken, Money, QuickBooks, Peachtree and many more. Four popular versions to choose from: VersaCheck 2001 Personal Home & Business Professional Premium VersaCheck Comes with High Quality Blank Security Check Stock Available Colors: Tan, Burgundy, Green and Blue Sample Check Please call 800-303-2620 for questions or assistance regarding this offer. Thank you very much. Best regards, Stephanie Key Customer Relationship Executive 800-303-2620 To change your communication preferences Click Here or simply reply to this Email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. Copyright © Globalzon, Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 11472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu Sun Aug 5 22:40:14 2001 From: mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu (lcs Mixmaster Remailer) Date: 6 Aug 2001 05:40:14 -0000 Subject: Traceable infrastructure Message-ID: <20010806054014.1857.qmail@nym.alias.net> All the more reason to morph freenet/mojo to mix duties, maybe even create a worm version that gives no evidence of it's existence, other than some increase in traffic. What happened to melontrafficers.com BTW? Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 04:07:14PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Now, the above is of course fiction, for now at least. But keeping such > widescale attacks on the infrastructure part of the threat model is not, > IMHO, a bad idea. The discussions on stego, disposable remailers, physical > broadcast technology and the like are part of that, and serve to lay the > groundwork in case shit one day does hit the fan. Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the cypherpunks and such. -Declan From nobody at mix.winterorbit.com Sun Aug 5 20:49:15 2001 From: nobody at mix.winterorbit.com (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:49:15 +0200 Subject: CDR Suggestion Message-ID: Eric Murray wrote: > As always I'm open to reasoned non-inflamatory suggestions, > especially from lne CDR subscribers. One thing that would be really helpful is if somebody sent information about the CDR to the list once a week. An explanation of what it is, how it works, how to unsubscribe, how to subscribe, and a list of nodes participating would be a blessing. For each node it would be nice to know: Operator (optional ;-) Subscription Address Help Address Posting Address Message Modification Policy Filtering Policy Privacy Policy (*) (*) Is the list of subscribers publicly available? (And, if so, why?) From jamesd at echeque.com Mon Aug 6 07:55:13 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 07:55:13 -0700 Subject: Remailer logs In-Reply-To: <003c01c11e17$b4b95350$d2972040@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B6E4D61.26468.6FC96@localhost> -- On 5 Aug 2001, at 18:32, Black Unicorn wrote: > Yes, but in two of the cases I cited no such notice was sent or required. > Moreover, the remailer operator is in a much _worse_ position with respect to > this issue. How can he or she know which emails are of potential probative > value to a court? If you knew beans from shit, you would know that puts him in a much better position on this issue. No possibility of guilty mind. He cannot be intentionally destroying evidence. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG b/ClMIY27s2DMQtvnXlpQWZGSjat1cjm/g+dX/zX 4G0us9N4kZ7YRQGwSQzQC9ktxLx3CBXpuaml6TgmW From honig at sprynet.com Mon Aug 6 08:11:16 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:11:16 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: References: <20010804224758.10845.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010806081116.008ca230@pop.sprynet.com> At 01:49 PM 8/6/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On 4 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > >> What's up with voice encryption? I'm ready to use it. I'm ready to > >Me, too. Let's do it, then: http://www.speakfreely.org/ And nautilus and PGPfone. Maybe on a pocket PC if they have decent audio. How do you make money on this approach, though? >We've got a lack of user base problem. I'm expecting voice encryption in >software when PDA (or wearable) with ~10 kBps wireless connectivity become >commonplace. Interop with an existing PC/Mac based tool might help. From bear at sonic.net Mon Aug 6 08:15:46 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: "Space War" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Jim Windle wrote: >This weeks New York Times Sunday magazine has an article about "space war". King George II seems intent on drumming up support for a space weapons platform. This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it looks likely to drive a massive wedge between the US and its current allies. Nobody who can't afford to put up their own orbiting weapons platform is going to be happy about the US doing so. Second, it pretty much means the US is going to have to withdraw from the space treaty of 1965, which bans space weapons. This latter is actually more interesting to me, because that treaty also bans national claims of sovereignty over off-earth property (or else Neil Armstrong would have been saying the ancient incantation, "we claim this new land in the name of...." when he planted that American flag on the moon in '69) and, more importantly, private claims of ownership on off-earth property. As far as I know there is no direct legislation banning such ownership in the US -- so it looks to me like the US withdrawing from that treaty would allow US corporations to do things like register mining claims or other claims on the moon or other off-earth real estate, or a US expiditionary force to make a national claim of sovereignty over the Moon or Mars or whatever the next time there's a government-sponsored landing on either of those bodies. If someone actually tries it, we'll se an interesting test. Although, perhaps not coincidentally, a space weapons platform orbiting Earth is also exactly what you need if you intend to *defend* claims of national sovereignty on the Moon, asteroids, Mars, etc. Bear From mmotyka at lsil.com Mon Aug 6 09:41:26 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:41:26 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. References: Message-ID: <3B6EC8B6.D31C7D9B@lsil.com> I'm quite aware of the attack. It's not guaranteed successful yet. If you've paid attention to our lawyers recently it sounds like the battle is sporadic and the outcome mixed. Until the heavy hand wipes out remailers the fate of an individual message is interesting. So as of even date being able to assign IP addresses to persons and remailer nodes is not equivalent to compromising the communications. It's the best solution available today isn't it? Ray Dillinger wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > > >Nested encryption protects a subverted node from being able to trace the > >entire chain in one fell swoop. > > Take your focus off the individual message. > > Okay? > > Now look at the system, the infrastructure, that you need to > send that message anonymously. It relies on identifiable > remops existing at known addresses. Known to the people sending > messages == known to the cops. > > If the law wants to take this thing down, they will not be > attacking the strongest point -- ie, trying to trace individual > messages. > > Instead, they will attack the weakest point -- trying to drive > remailer operators out of business and thus destroy the > infrastructure you need. That is the threat model I'm concerned > about, and given that network monitoring is now automatable and > cheap, it is entirely do-able. > > >As long as there is one uncompromised node in a chain subversion doesn't > >guarantee a matchup of "from" and "to" but it improves the odds. > > So what? A move by the g8 to protect the "global infrastructure" > of the Internet, (polspeak for protecting their ability to control > what the sheep think) followed by laws passed in individual countries, > would force remops to operate solely in "rogue states", and messages > to and from them could be screened out pretty simply. > > Bear From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 6 09:41:55 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:41:55 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010806081116.008ca230@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <200108061642.f76GgDx17047@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 6, 2001, at 08:11 AM, David Honig wrote: > At 01:49 PM 8/6/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >> On 4 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: >> >>> What's up with voice encryption? I'm ready to use it. I'm ready to >> >> Me, too. Let's do it, then: http://www.speakfreely.org/ > > And nautilus and PGPfone. Maybe on a pocket PC if they have > decent audio. How do you make money on this approach, though? > > >> We've got a lack of user base problem. I'm expecting voice encryption >> in >> software when PDA (or wearable) with ~10 kBps wireless connectivity >> become >> commonplace. Starian, the company founded by Eric Blossom and others, had a 3DES unit the size of an external modem that worked as described. (I have one.) The problem is the "fax effect": who ya gonna call? It works well for "cells" consisting of trading partners, drug dealers, freedom fighters, etc. They can just buy several of them for their members. Solving the fax effect problem happens when a _standard_ is widely deployed, or when some major deals with cellphone vendors happen. I understand Starian has been trying to get a cellphone version designed-in. ObSpoliationClaim: "Those who buy such machines are obviously trying to hide evidence. Mr. Happy Fun Court is "not amused."" --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 6 09:48:03 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:48:03 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108061757.f76Hv4x17708@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 6, 2001, at 09:05 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > >> And nautilus and PGPfone. Maybe on a pocket PC if they have >> decent audio. How do you make money on this approach, though? > > By selling wireless bandwidth? Hardware? Leather accessoires and GUI > skins? Consulting? > > I don't think the apps themselves should be commercial. It only leads to > featuritis, lousy code and backdoors. > >> Interop with an existing PC/Mac based tool might help. > > Definitely. There are, supposedly people out there who do VoIP from > their > desktops, but I never met any. > I have. I've been telephoned by people who used Internet telephony for part of the long-haul, reaching a local line at my end. Sounded slightly tinny, but was OK. And a friend of mine here in California routinely calls his relatives in Chicago over such a link. They can talk for hours at no cost to him. And there was at least one meeting of the Cypherpunks, in around 1993, where three scattered sites (Mountain View, Northern Virginia, Boston/Cambridge) were linked with an "M-bone" voice-over-Internet conference call. Better yet, DES-encrypted. That was 8 years ago. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 6 09:52:23 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:52:23 -0700 Subject: Top-posting considered harmful In-Reply-To: <3B6EC8B6.D31C7D9B@lsil.com> Message-ID: <200108061757.f76Huxx17698@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 6, 2001, at 09:41 AM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > I'm quite aware of the attack. It's not guaranteed successful yet. If > you've paid attention to our lawyers recently it sounds like the battle > is sporadic and the outcome mixed. > > Until the heavy hand wipes out remailers the fate of an individual > message is interesting. So as of even date being able to assign IP > addresses to persons and remailer nodes is not equivalent to > compromising the communications. > > It's the best solution available today isn't it? > > Ray Dillinger wrote: >> (post by Ray elided) I encourage people not to "top-post" (placing comments at the top of an included message). It's becoming endemic on Usenet. Not a slam against Mike, just trying to remind people of how bad top-posting can be. --Tim May From bear at sonic.net Mon Aug 6 10:13:56 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3B6EC8B6.D31C7D9B@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >I'm quite aware of the attack. It's not guaranteed successful yet. True. But it beats the snot out of guessing keys. Offhand, I'd estimate that if three US remops were taken down forcefully, and the federal law looked as though any other could be, all but two or three hardcases would cease operating remailers in the USA. That would wipe out well over 70% of the remailers, leaving a very small universe indeed to monitor. Bear From bear at sonic.net Mon Aug 6 10:52:08 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: "Space War" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > >> Second, it pretty much means the US is going to have to withdraw >> from the space treaty of 1965, which bans space weapons. This >> latter is actually more interesting to me, because that treaty >> also bans national claims of sovereignty over off-earth property >> (or else Neil Armstrong would have been saying the ancient >> incantation, "we claim this new land in the name of...." when he >> planted that American flag on the moon in '69) and, more >> importantly, private claims of ownership on off-earth property. > >He did do that you silly goose. He claimed it in the name of the US for >'All mankind'... > >Check the web. I did, actually. Turns out I got the year wrong, it was 1967 not 1965. But the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, to which the US is a signatory, has a big fat anti-sovereignty clause, stating that no nation can claim off-earth territory. Discussion can be found at http://www.spacepolicy.org/page_mw0799.html Although I found this guy far too optimistic about the role of government, I believe he has his facts straight regarding the treaty. Bear From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Mon Aug 6 08:00:14 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:00:14 -0400 Subject: Governors Seeking Internet Tax Message-ID: > Declan McCullagh[SMTP:declan at well.com] wrote: > > Actually under current law you're supposed to be paying tax on such > purchases (you ordering from PennsylvaniaBoks.com, in my example). > But almost nobody does pay taxes on their mail order purchases (that > lack nexus), so the states are peeved. > > -Declan > That's my understanding too. This leads to some amusing situations - I know a person who rather than pay ~$300 sales tax on an engagement ring, had it sent to a friend two states over, who he than visited at a considerable overall savings. In New Hampshire, all the liquor stores are run by the State (a bad thing, but not the point of this story). New Hampshire also has no sales tax, unlike the neghbouring states (here in MA it's 5%). On major highways and roads entering NH, you will typically find huge state run liquor stores a couple of miles inside the state line, which are typically filled with out of staters buying (slightly) cheaper booze. A while back, MA State Troopers started staking out the parking lot of one of these stores on a highway leading to Taxachusetts, and radioing ahead license numbers of MA cars loading up. They were then stopped the other side of the state line and forced to pay MA sales tax. This scheme lasted a few days, until the NH State Troopers threatened to arrest the MA State Troopers for loitering - they were hurting business. Ah... life in the land of the free... Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Mon Aug 6 08:00:25 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:00:25 -0400 Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows Message-ID: Not too long ago (less than a year, I think) Jim not only gave the URL, he included as a MIME attachment the entire page - often 10s of Kb. He got thoroughly and deservedly flamed for this, and ceased to do so. The current situation is far preferable to the old one. I completely agree that Jim would acheive his goal of communication far better if he gave a sentence or two explaining why the link is worth following. However, convincing Jim to do *anything* for the convenience of others - even to promote his own goals - is very difficult. Peter Trei > ---------- > From: John Young[SMTP:jya at pipeline.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 6:26 PM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows > > Jim, I appreciate your resistance. Still, our experience on Cryptome with > offering only URLs indicates that they are little used unless there's a > taste > of what is worth going to see. No doubt that it would be easiest to > give only URLs and let the lazy bastards graze readers-digest crap > elsewhere. But it's not the deadheads we'd like to swap info with, > for they never give back enough to make it worthwhile -- usually the > shits just send more URLs without explanation as if we can read > their profound thoughts. > > What we've found is that if you treat your readers with respect they'll > give it to you, even send you stuff you'd never see otherwise. That is, > they'll inform you and educate you in ways you can't do alone, though > that shared experience isn't for everyone, I'll grant you, in particular > when you want only to talk and preach and not listen and learn. > > So we've found that the better we make our samples the more likely > readers will figure we're offering something worth reading, and if they > like it they'll eventually return the favor, and if we're lucky we get > better than we offer -- indeed, that is always the case: the best > stuff comes in from folks who figure they'd like to take part in a > mutually rewarding situation, as we see on cypherpunks. > > URLs alone send a message of laziness, contempt, cluelessness about > the benefits of communication as against dancing castaway on an island. > For that solo shit you don't need CDR, the Net, the world, or think you > don't until the radio farts coming from your ass are only cancer static. From bear at sonic.net Mon Aug 6 11:03:05 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Apollo 11 - For all mankind In-Reply-To: <3B6ED354.D86AE96A@ssz.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >Note the commentary about changing the budget to prevent other flags from >being planted... > >http://www.harmonize.com/swdroundup/Apollo11.htm > > Note the commentary that it was "strictly a symbolic activity, as the United Nations Treaty on Outer Space precluded any territorial claim." Bear From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 6 02:38:50 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:38:50 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Traceable infrastructure In-Reply-To: <20010806054014.1857.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: On 6 Aug 2001, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: > All the more reason to morph freenet/mojo to mix duties, maybe even > create a worm version > that gives no evidence of it's existence, other than some increase in traffic. FYI, current MojoNation (written mostly in Python and some C) allows traffic throttling, and can be modified to only link up to different legal compartments, and limit the amounts of direct virtual connections. Also, after Freenet adapted an XML-RPC API Mojo is also making noises in that direction. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Mon Aug 6 08:51:46 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:51:46 -0400 Subject: Spoliation cites Message-ID: > jamesd at echeque.com[SMTP:jamesd at echeque.com] wrote: > > I am unable to reconcile Black Unicorn's recent post, where he denounces > almost the entire cypherpunk program as illegal by current legal standards > and a manifestation of foolish ignorance of the law and obstinate refusal > to take his wise advice, with the conjecture that Black Unicorn is aware > of > current recommended best practice in record keeping. > I've mostly been staying out of this stormy little teacup, but I'll concur that BU is overreaching himself. When he starts to claim that writing security software to best industry practices - erasing sensitive data as soon as it's need has passed, clearing disks and buffers, etc - all practices mandated for meeting certain government FIPS levels, and widely documented as standard - when he claims that writing programs correctly could get me in trouble - then it's time to downgrade my estimates of his knowledge and expertise. Peter Trei From ericm at lne.com Mon Aug 6 12:08:57 2001 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:08:57 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: ; from ptrei@rsasecurity.com on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:51:46AM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20010806120857.A18095@slack.lne.com> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > > jamesd at echeque.com[SMTP:jamesd at echeque.com] wrote: > > > > I am unable to reconcile Black Unicorn's recent post, where he denounces > > almost the entire cypherpunk program as illegal by current legal standards > > and a manifestation of foolish ignorance of the law and obstinate refusal > > to take his wise advice, with the conjecture that Black Unicorn is aware > > of > > current recommended best practice in record keeping. > > > I've mostly been staying out of this stormy little teacup, but I'll > concur that BU is overreaching himself. When he starts to claim > that writing security software to best industry practices - erasing > sensitive data as soon as it's need has passed, clearing disks > and buffers, etc - all practices mandated for meeting certain > government FIPS levels, and widely documented as standard - > when he claims that writing programs correctly could get me > in trouble - then it's time to downgrade my estimates of his > knowledge and expertise. > > Peter Trei I read him as suggesting that some ambitious prosecutors might possibly try to extend spoliation to that point, not that they're doing so now. A bit of Googling finds a good definition of spoliation (in California): ---- Plaintiff possessed a potential defense to a claim for damages against a defendant. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of this claim for damages by plaintiff. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the existence of the physical evidence and knew or reasonably should have known that it might constitute evidence in pending litigation involving plaintiff. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that if he did not act with reasonable care to preserve the physical evidence, the potential evidence could be destroyed, damaged, lost or concealed. Defendant failed to act with reasonable care. Defendant's failure to act with reasonable care caused the destruction of, damage to, or loss or concealment of such evidence. As a result, plaintiff sustained damage, namely plaintiff s opportunity to prove its claim was interfered with substantially. ---- As BU points out, if "reasonably should have known" can be defined in court as "you were running a service that allowed drug dealers and pedophiles to send anonymous email", talking about FIPS 140 etc. won't help much in front of a jury of Oprah-watching "peers", even if it's factually and technically correct. Are things this bad already? I don't know, but it wouldn't suprise me. A murder case in silicon valley recently finished. The jurors were interviewed by the local paper. When asked why they convicted the defendant on circumstantial evidence, the answer was "he felt guilty". Eric From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 10:10:14 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:10:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Slashdot | Roasting Sacred Cows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > Not too long ago (less than a year, I think) Jim not only gave the URL, > he included as a MIME attachment the entire page - often 10s of Kb. > He got thoroughly and deservedly flamed for this, and ceased to do > so. Actually I've tried each and every one of these suggestions, and the same group has bitched about each and every one of them. Check the archives. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 10:11:35 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:11:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "Space War" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > Second, it pretty much means the US is going to have to withdraw > from the space treaty of 1965, which bans space weapons. This > latter is actually more interesting to me, because that treaty > also bans national claims of sovereignty over off-earth property > (or else Neil Armstrong would have been saying the ancient > incantation, "we claim this new land in the name of...." when he > planted that American flag on the moon in '69) and, more > importantly, private claims of ownership on off-earth property. He did do that you silly goose. He claimed it in the name of the US for 'All mankind'... Check the web. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From amaha at vsnl.net Mon Aug 6 10:18:37 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:18:37 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108061718.f76HIZZ13768@ak47.algebra.com> The secret of success- if there is one-is the ability to put yourself in another person's shoes, and to consider things from his or her point of view as well as your own. --Henry Ford ***************************************************************************** Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period of 60 days+. We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will make your life peaceful,successful & happy in a way you had never imagined before. If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 10:26:44 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 12:26:44 -0500 Subject: Apollo 11 - For all mankind Message-ID: <3B6ED354.D86AE96A@ssz.com> Note the commentary about changing the budget to prevent other flags from being planted... http://www.harmonize.com/swdroundup/Apollo11.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 10:30:00 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:30:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Inferno: Fw: [free-sklyarov] Lessig on WIPO (short) (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Any Mouse ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Moeller" To: Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 11:31 AM Subject: [free-sklyarov] Lessig on WIPO (short) > Here's the reply I got from Larry Lessig on the relevance of the WIPO > Copyright Treaty to the issues discussed on the list, my original > mail is also quoted below. For more on WIPO, see my summary: > > http://www.infoanarchy.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/8/4/53534/20827 > > ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > Date sent: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 19:47:50 -0700 > Subject: Re: WIPO Copyright Treaty > From: Lawrence Lessig > To: Erik Moeller > > The treaty does push for DMCA like legislation, but most nations (even > those ratifying the treaty) have not yet enacted DMCA legislation. I > think the WIPO treaty should be opposed, so I do think it would be > good to identify this as a problem. -- > > Lessig > Stanford Law School > Crown Quadrangle > 559 Nathan Abbott Way > Stanford, CA 94305-8610 > 650.736.0999 (vx) > 650.723.8440 (fx) > 415.430.1269 x7727 (e fax) > > mailto:lessig at pobox.com > > > From: "Erik Moeller" > > Organization: Scientific Review Service > > Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:44:31 +0200 > > To: lessig at eff.org > > Subject: WIPO Copyright Treaty > > > > Dear Professor Lessig, > > > > as a legal expert who is familiar with the Sklyarov case, what do > > you think about the WIPO Copyright Treaty? As far as I understand > > it, it is the direct "cause" of the DMCA and similar international > > laws and was agreed on by delegates of the WIPO member nations > > during the December 1996 meeting. > > > > But member nations seem to have no actual obligation to enforce the > > treaty, and it could in fact be denounced with no consequences. Do > > you think it would make sense to > > > > - denounce the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty and replace the DMCA with > > more reasonable national law / repeal it - protest at the next WIPO > > copyright meeting (Nov 26-30 in Geneva) - submit papers to the WIPO > > convention - get organizations like the EFF to participate in the > > convention? > > > > I think WIPO may be a better target than the national goverments, > > since they specifically deal with these issues. What do you think? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Erik Moeller > > > > > > > > -- > > Scientific Reviewer, Freelancer, Humanist -- Berlin/Germany > > Phone: +49-30-45491008 - Web: > > The Origins of Peace and Violence: > > > > "History is full of people who, out of fear or ignorance or the lust > > for power, have destroyed treasures of immeasurable value which > > truly belong to all of us. We must not let it happen again." -- Carl > > Sagan > > > > ------- End of forwarded message ------- > > -- > Scientific Reviewer, Freelancer, Humanist -- Berlin/Germany > Phone: +49-30-45491008 - Web: > The Origins of Peace and Violence: > > "History is full of people who, out of fear or ignorance or the lust > for power, have destroyed treasures of immeasurable value which truly > belong to all of us. We must not let it happen again." -- Carl Sagan > > _______________________________________________ > free-sklyarov mailing list > free-sklyarov at zork.net > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 10:55:11 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 12:55:11 -0500 Subject: kuro5hin.org || Retail Stores Beginning to Fingerprint Customers Message-ID: <3B6ED9FF.5780ADF5@ssz.com> http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/6/10465/11980 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 6 04:06:21 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:06:21 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Extradition from the Great Beyond In-Reply-To: <20010804010901.15320.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: On 4 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > Very interesting! I wonder if it is possible to learn to write in > other "linguistic fingerprints"? I'll have to look into this. Are Since people can't do good random, I presume you can't prevent from leaking bits, unless you use very short messages with very primitive syntax, and do some algorithmic substitution. A better solution would be to use AI which expands a formal construct into natural language, or just ask another person to rewrite a text, then another and maybe one more. Of course the final message still bears a fingerprint, but it's no longer your own. > there any such programs that are free and run under Linux? From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 11:08:20 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:08:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "Space War" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > >Check the web. > > I did, actually. You checked the wrong thing; you should check the moon landing and Congress' budget for NASA...I sent a URL to the list earlier. IF (big if) the US ever does drop out of the treaty they will still be able to claim the moon because ONLY the US flag was planted when it was claimed. China has plans to have somebody up there in 2005 and potentialy a simple moonbase by 2015. We'll see what happens... Enjoy. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 6 04:49:16 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:49:16 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <20010804224758.10845.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: On 4 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > What's up with voice encryption? I'm ready to use it. I'm ready to Me, too. Let's do it, then: http://www.speakfreely.org/ > pay money for it. However, this is only if it uses a real crypto > algorithm (AES, 3DES, and not some "proprietary" crap) and if it has a > published protocol, so we can verify that it is actually encrypting > properly. Starium has had "demo" units out for almost two years now, > but their web page has been static for a long time, and no one has They folded, I thought? > answered the phone there for a long time. Any others? I know that > voice encryption is the last great crypto taboo, and I'm waiting for > it to fall. > > I am aware of quite a few other voice encryption units out there, but > all that I have looked into have used a proprietary protocol, and even > worse, some proprietary crypto algorithm. That seems pretty useless. > If their alg is so fabulous why didn't they submit it to the AES > competition? Ergo, their alg is not so fabulous. We've got a lack of user base problem. I'm expecting voice encryption in software when PDA (or wearable) with ~10 kBps wireless connectivity become commonplace. From georgemw at speakeasy.net Mon Aug 6 14:01:25 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:01:25 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: <3B6EC8B6.D31C7D9B@lsil.com> Message-ID: <3B6EA335.19232.1520FE5@localhost> On 6 Aug 2001, at 10:13, Ray Dillinger wrote: > Offhand, I'd estimate that if three US remops were taken down > forcefully, and the federal law looked as though any other could > be, all but two or three hardcases would cease operating remailers > in the USA. Depends on exactly what you mean by "taken down forcefully". If you just mean forced to cease operations without additional repercussions, I think it's more likely that more would pop up. >That would wipe out well over 70% of the remailers, > leaving a very small universe indeed to monitor. > > Bear > Just speculation, or course, but I suspect there are quite a few people out there who would be willing and able to run remailers but don't bother doing it because there's no perceived need and no real payoff. I believe in principle a mixmaster network really only needs two remailers to exist to function properly. George From jya at pipeline.com Mon Aug 6 14:17:56 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 14:17:56 -0700 Subject: "Space War" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200108061817.OAA06982@smtp6.mindspring.com> Don't overlook what is reportedly happening on the back side of the moon. The URL for an IF-mooncam was posted here a while ago. The stream is encrypted but with weak crypto -- the crypto-processor is 1968-9 vintage. The cam is part of a data package placed on the dark side in a classified operation. Signals bounced off a reflector stationed at the very edge of the moon's profile. What else is being done there remains to be disclosed. Didn't somebody mention also mention here that there's a group which intercepts the stream? I believe the Smithsonian has an archive of the small amount of public material, and NARA has some of the classified stuff needing clearance for access. From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 6 14:19:10 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:19:10 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3B6EA335.19232.1520FE5@localhost> Message-ID: <200108062119.f76LJbx19433@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 6, 2001, at 02:01 PM, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > > Just speculation, or course, but I suspect there are quite a few > people out there who would be willing and able to run remailers but > don't bother doing it because there's no perceived need > and no real payoff. > > I believe in principle a mixmaster network really only needs > two remailers to exist to function properly. No, because then the collusion set is reduced to only two. If Alice and Bob run the only two mixes, a trivial matter for them to collude. Even with three mixes, which many think to be the canonical Dining Cryptographers net size (perhaps because the menu example is given with three diners?), collusion is trivial. In the DC-Net paper of '88, only the first two pages is devoted to outlining how mix-nets basically work: the rest of the paper dealt with dealing with collusion amongst subsets of the participants. A mix-net of two mixes is not even worth discussing. --Tim May From hari at india.marlabs.com Mon Aug 6 01:55:40 2001 From: hari at india.marlabs.com (P.K.Hari Das ) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:25:40 +0530 Subject: Introducing Marlabs Message-ID: <004301c11fce$00f89660$0500a8c0@marlabs1> Dear Sir, Let me introduce myself as Hari, Manager, Marlabs Inc.(India - Operations). Marlabs, Inc. is a worldwide provider of information technology solutions. Our expertise spans application software development and package software implementation through system life-cycle project responsibility. Our e-commerce solutions include web application development and hosting. Our solutions include many WAP enabled projects for reputed clients. We also provide staff supplementation of IT personnel. The company has 4 branch offices in the US (two of them are offsite development centers PA and TX) as well as an office in Bangalore, India, which has the offshore software development capabilities. With all the state of the art communication facilities and infrastructure, software can be developed, integrated and installed on the delivery date at a very low cost, when compared to other parts of the world. Marlabs was founded in 1996 on integrity, responsiveness and long-term, seamless partnerships. Since 1996, Marlabs, Inc. has experienced tremendous growth. Developing solid experience managing projects of various sizes in healthcare and E-commerce/Web related industries. Marlabs' primary focus has been on winning a variety of client/server application development contracts, and recently, B2B E-commerce and other Internet-based database development and maintenance projects for health, financial, environmental, and communication industries. Today, Marlabs is still committed to the mission of providing consistently superior Information Technology consulting services in a timely, affordable manner, in a work environment that emphasizes responsiveness and integrity, while promoting long-term, seamless partnerships based on mutual respect. Please drop in at www.marlabs.com to know more about our company. I look forward to have a fruitful discussion on joining together in business in the areas of onsite consulting,outsourced services, database management and warehousing, web enabled services ng ,training as well as onsite customized IT solutions at any region of US,Europe and Asia. Have a nice day, Sincerely, P.K.Haridas Manager Marlabs Inc India 91-80-5092113 /5321582,83 Mobile 91-98441-17319 US 1-732-767-1710 x 14 (Mr.Jay Nair) www.marlabs.com The Real Act Of Discovery Is Not Finding New Lands, But In Seeing With New Eyes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3802 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pzakas at toucancapital.com Mon Aug 6 11:46:34 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:46:34 -0400 Subject: RSA Factoring Challenge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Is anyone working on the current RSA factoring challenge? $10K prize for factoring a 576-bit number; $200K for a 2048-bit number (other awards for 640, 704, 768, 896, 1024 and 1536-bit numbers.) See this page for details: http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/numbers.html They've provided me with the C source used to generate the numbers (though not the BSafe toolkit you need to link into the program.) Anyone can receive the source by asking RSA for it. I've decided to enter by using a factoring program which makes guesses about what the prime number factors are (by examining the last two digits, predicting the likely like of one/both factors, using lists of prime numbers generated by a second algorithm, etc.) So far, barring errors in my logic and code (always a possibility), I've completed a little over 5% of the "likely" candidates for the 576-bit number in a little over 2 days using a single CPU pentium III-600 with 512MB RAM. phillip From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 12:54:45 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 14:54:45 -0500 Subject: CNN.com - California victims can't sue gunmakers - August 6, 2001 Message-ID: <3B6EF605.C49E201D@ssz.com> http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/06/california.guns.ap/index.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 13:06:52 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:06:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: Cipher attack delivers heavy blow to WLAN security (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:18:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: Cipher attack delivers heavy blow to WLAN security Cipher attack delivers heavy blow to WLAN security By Patrick Mannion EE Times (08/04/01, 12:49 p.m. EST) MANHASSET, N.Y. - A new report dashes any remaining illusions that 802.11-based (Wi-Fi) wireless local-area networks are in any way secure. The paper, written by three of the world's foremost cryptographers, describes a devastating attack on the RC4 cipher, on which the WLAN wired-equivalent privacy (WEP) encryption scheme is based. The passive network attack takes advantage of several weaknesses in the key-scheduling algorithm of RC4 and allows almost anyone with a WLAN-enabled laptop and some readily available "promiscuous" network software to retrieve a network's key - thereby gaining full user access - in less than 15 minutes. http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010803S0082 --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From info at giganetstore.com Mon Aug 6 07:10:41 2001 From: info at giganetstore.com (info at giganetstore.com) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:10:41 +0100 Subject: Frio em sua casa! Message-ID: <0b2594210140681WWWSHOPENS@wwwshopens.giganetstore.com> Frio em sua casa A giganetstore.com apresenta-lhe uma gama completa de Frigoríficos, Congeladores e Combinados que lhe ajudarão a manter as frutas e os sumos de verão ainda mais frescos. Frig. 1Port ART 200 41.900 ($) Poupe 7% Frig. 2P SR28 89.900 ($) Poupe 11% Combi CG 1230 59.900 ($) Poupe 10% Congelador ECH 225 52.900 ($) Poupe 13% Frigobar Indesit 39.900 ($) Poupe 25% Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http:\\www.giganetstore.com , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6799 bytes Desc: not available URL: From a3495 at cotse.com Mon Aug 6 12:19:05 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Information & Communications Technology Law Journal ONLINE Message-ID: Information & Communications Technology Law Journal www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/13600834.html You can browse the table of contents for all back issues--and order them online with a credit card or through your local university/interlibrary loan. The free trial issue isn't too shabby either: the special topic is "Artificial Intelligence and the Law". ~Faustine. *** The full list of back issues is on their site, here's a sample for the undermotivated: Information & Communications Technology Law Volume 8 Number 3 October 1999 ARTICLES The Singapore E-Commerce Code Assafa Endeshaw 189 Internet Banking: The Digital Voyage of Banking and Money in Cyberspace Sofia Giannakoudi 205 CASE NOTES Germany: Decisions of Berlin and Munich Courts on whether the exhaustion of the distribution right under Art. 4 lit. c Software Directive ('69c No. 3 Copyright Act) can be limited to distribution as OEM-versions or as updates Andreas Raubenheimer 245 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Germany: Domain registration in Germany (www.xxx.de)Policy of DENIC for German Top Level Domains .de Andreas Raubenheimer 247 title page and contents, volume 8 249 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 JUNE 1999 SPECIAL ISSUE: NETWORKED SERVICES Guest Editors: David Slee & John B. Hobson Editorial David Slee & John B. Hobson 125 ARTICLES Substantive Issues of Copyright Protection in a Networked Environment Stanley Lai 127 Control of Inventions in a Networked World Howard C. Anawalt 141 On Using Animations in Court Ajit Narayanan, Gareth Penny, Sharon Hibbin, Shara K. Lochun & Wendy Milne 151 Customizing the Presentation of Legal Documents over the World Wide Web C. A. Royles & T. J. M. Bench-Capon 165 BOOK REVIEW 175 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 8 NUMBER 1 MARCH 1999 ARTICLES Computer Misuse Law in Singapore Assafa Endeshaw 5 A Survey of Computer Crime Legislation in the United States John M. Conley & Robert M. Bryan 35 Record Newspapers, Legal Notice Laws and Digital Technology Solutions Shannon E. Martin 59 The Data Protection Bill 1998: a comparative examination David Slee 71 BOOK REVIEW 111 Information & Communications Technology Law Volume 7 Number 3 OCTOBER 1998 LAW, COMPUTERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SPECIAL ISSUE: FORMAL MODELS OF LEGAL TIME Guest Editors: Antonio A. Martino & Ephraim Nissan Guest Editorial A. A. Martino 165 Guest Editorial E. Nissan 167 PART I: APPROACHES BASED ON TEMPORAL LOGIC Time in Automated Legal Reasoning L. Vila & H. Yoshino 173 Representing Temporal Knowledge in Legal Discourse B. Knight, J. Ma & E. Nissan 199 Representation of Temporal Knowledge in Events: the formalism, and its potential for legal narratives G. P. Zarri 213 PART II: APPROACHES BASED ON PETRI NETS Temporal Structure and Enablement Representation for Mutual Wills: a Petri net approach D. Y. Farook & E. Nissan 243 Time Petri Nets for Modelling Civil Litigation R. Valette & B. Pradin-Chizalviel 269 TITLE PAGE AND CONTENTS, VOLUME 7 281 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 JUNE 1998 ARTICLES Supranational Investigation after Amsterdam, The Corpus Juris and Agenda 2000 W. A. Tupman 85 WWW: World Wide Web or Wild Wild West? Fixing the Fenceposts on the Final Frontier: domain names, intellectual property paradigms and current disputes over the governance of the Internet Robin Mackenzie 103 Making a Case for Case Frames Radboud Winkels & Henk de Bruijn 117 Computing Rich Semantic Models of Text in Legal Domains Wai K. Yeap 135 Crime and Technology: new rules in a new world Hedieh Nasheri & Timothy J. OHearn 145 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 7 NUMBER 1 MARCH1998 ARTICLES The Proper Law for Electronic Commerce Assafa Endeshaw 5 A Critique of the Latent Damage Expert System David McClelland 15 NATIONAL REPORT The Law Relating to Computer Misuse in the Republic of Ireland Julianne OLeary 31 CASE NOTES Increasing Importance of Hardware Locks (Dongles) in Recent German Case Law Andreas Raubenheimer 51 Recent Developments in Germany: jurisdiction of courts in case of acts of unfair competition committed on the Internet Andreas Raubenheimer 70 Criminal Prosecution Through Public Prosecutors Against Online Services, Internet Providers and Individuals Andreas Raubenheimer 71 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 6 NUMBER 3 OCTOBER 1997 ARTICLES Pornography and the Possible Criminal Liability of Internet Service Providers Under the Obscene Publication(s) and Protection of Children Act Terry Palfrey 187 >From Law to DiaLaw: Why Legal Justification Should be Modelled as a Dialogue Arno R. Lodder 201 Supporting the Legal Practitioner: LKBS or Web? Ronald Leenes & Jvrgen Svensson 217 An Architecture for Legal Information Retrieval using Task Models Luuk Matthijssen 229 NATIONAL REPORT The Law on Computer Crime in Italy Giancarlo Taddei Elmi 249 BOOK REVIEW 267 TITLE PAGE AND CONTENTS, VOLUME 6 271 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2 JUNE 1997 SPECIAL NUMBER Multimedia Products and the Law Guest Editor: John Conley EDITORIAL John Conley 99 ARTICLES Modelling Legal Documents as Graphs T. J. M. Bench-Capon, P. E. S. Dunne & G. Staniford 103 Downloading, Information Filtering and Copyright Erich Schweighofer 121 Fair Use in the Context of a Global Network - is a copyright grab really going on? James J. Marcellino & Melise Blakeslee 137 Fair Use for Faculty-created Multimedia Laura N. Gasaway 153 BOOK REVIEWS 175 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 6 NUMBER 1 MARCH 1997 ARTICLES Intellectual Property Implications of Multimedia Products: a case study John M. Conley & Kelli Bemelmans 3 Processing Personal Data and the Data Protection Directive David I. Bainbridge 17 LASER: a system to retrieve UK employment law cases Mohammad Ali Montazeri, Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon & Alison E. Adam 41 LEGISLATION Electronic Communication and the Defamation Act 1996: clarity or confusion? Lesley Dolding & Sheila Dziobon 55 CASE NOTE Revisiting the 'Shrinkwrap Licence': ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg John T. Cross 71 REVIEW ARTICLE Good Technology? Music and the challenge of technology towards the fin de sihcle Steve Greenfield & Guy Osborn 77 BOOK REVIEWS 87 NEWS ITEM 91 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 5 NUMBER 3 OCTOBER 1996 ARTICLES Council of Europe Activities Related to Information Technology, Data Protection and Computer Crime Peter Csonka 177 Policing the Transmission of Pornographic Material Terry Palfrey 197 Technologically Augmented Litigation-systematic revolution Frederic I. Lederer 215 A Hybrid Legal Decision-support System Using Both Rule-based and Case-based Reasoning Kamalendu Pal & John A. Campbell 227 CASE NOTE Using Personal Data after R v. Brown David I. Bainbridge 247 BOOK REVIEWS 253 TITLE-PAGE AND CONTENTS, VOLUME 5 259 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 5 NUMBER 2 JUNE 1996 SPECIAL NUMBER Information Technology, Intellectual Property Rights and the Uruguay Round Guest Editor: Rohini Acharya EDITORIAL New Technologies and Intellectual Property Rights: the next frontier Rohini Acharya 91 ARTICLES Towards a Unifying Law: international copyright conventions, the GATT TRIPs Agreement and related EC regulations Craig R. Karpe 95 The Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property Rights and Computers: recent developments in UK, EC and international law David L. Perrott 111 The TRIPs Agreement and Information Technologies: implications for developing countries Carlos M. Correa 133 Intellectual Property Rights and Information Technology: the impact of the Uruguay Round on developing countries Rohini Acharya 149 BOOK REVIEWS 167 Information & Communications Technology Law VOLUME 5 NUMBER 1 MARCH 1996 ARTICLES Controlling Computer Crime in Germany Sigmund P. Martin 5 Computerizing Criminal Law: problems of evidence, liabilitiy and mens rea Mervyn E. Bennun 29 Lord Woolf and Information Technology Lynn Henderson 45 Fundamentals of Representation I: a traditional philosophy Brian Carr 57 CASE NOTES Making and Sale of Collections of Readings by Educational Institutions in Australia Kamal Puri 69 Munich Court of Appeals Prohibits Circumvention of Software Copyright Protection (Dongle, Hardware Lock) Yet Again Andreas Raubenheimer 75 From wcrews at cato.org Mon Aug 6 12:21:11 2001 From: wcrews at cato.org (Wayne Crews) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:21:11 -0400 Subject: Cato TechKnowledge: The Feds Want To Write Your Software Message-ID: The Feds Want To Write Your Software Issue #15 August 6, 2001 by D. T. Armentano In Ayn Rand's famous 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, unconstrained politicians end up destroying the U.S. economy by regulating (among other things) invention and product innovation. In that vision, new products that would revolutionize an industry-and put less efficient competitors out of business-have to be controlled and even suppressed by government so that no company has an "unfair" advantage and everyone has an equal chance to compete. Critics savaged Rand's thesis arguing that she had portrayed regulators as political lunatics. The critics opined smugly that this sort of innovation regulation could never happen here. Well, tell that to Microsoft. For almost a decade, Microsoft has battled federal and state antitrust authorities over its right to freely innovate in the marketplace by integrating its Web browser, Internet Explorer, with its proprietary Windows operating system. Microsoft claimed that consumers wanted integrated functionality because it was easier and cheaper to use, while the feds maintained that competitors (such as Netscape) were put at a competitive disadvantage by integration and could be injured by it. After a contentious trial and a recent appellate court decision, the basic antitrust issues are still unresolved. The current innovation controversy is over Microsoft's soon-to-be introduced operating system, Windows XP, which has features that will steer consumers to Microsoft's own proprietary products and allegedly injure rivals such as America Online and Eastman Kodak, among others. The Senate Judiciary Committee has already scheduled hearings in September to consider, as committee member Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently put it, whether the design of Windows XP could cause "great harm to consumers, as well as competing companies." Never mind that no one (including the government's expert witnesses at the antitrust trial) produced a shred of evidence that any of Microsoft's previous innovations injured consumers. And never mind that the antitrust laws are not intended to protect competitors from consumer-friendly innovation, and that to do so would betray any alleged consumer-protection mission. Never even mind that no law in the U.S. mandates that a firm must structure its innovation to make competitive life easier for its rivals. Put aside all of that and consider the following: Do you really want the likes of Sen. Schumer and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) writing your future computer software? There are several reasons why the answer to that question must be an emphatic "no." The first is that the new Microsoft XP operating system is Microsoft's property; Microsoft invented it, owns it, and has a moral as well as legal right to it. That right allows Microsoft to determine what the software will do and who will use (license) it and on what terms. Any government regulation of a company's right to use its own property in a peaceful manner-and trade with consumers is entirely peaceful-is an illegitimate taking and a violation of the company's property rights. Second, political control over product innovation is monstrously inefficient, as Ayn Rand illustrated in her novel. Sen. Schumer is concerned about AOL and Kodak only because those firms (and jobs and votes) are in his political district demanding "protection" from Microsoft's newest innovation. The implication is that any time competitors feel threatened by a rival's innovation, the politicians will hold hearings and threaten to regulate the offending innovator. Under those terms, future productivity and growth in the U.S. economy will be held hostage to pandering politicians and politically connected corporations seeking shelter from the process of creative destruction-to advance an absurd politically correct notion of competition. Microsoft's representatives have already been invited to appear before the Judiciary Committee hearings in the fall. As Ayn Rand would say, the government needs Microsoft's expertise and cooperation to help lend credibility to the regulation of Windows XP, a "sanction of the victim" so to speak. To assert its rights, Microsoft should boycott the hearings and deny the feds any legitimate sanction. Let's get the true nature of the "hearings" out in the open. Innovation regulation is a counterproductive and immoral high-tech intrusion. Those about to be targeted need not cooperate. D. T. Armentano (ArmentaD at irene.net) is professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford (Connecticut) and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He is the author of Antitrust and Monopoly (Independent Institute, 1998) and Antitrust: The Case for Repeal (Mises Institute, 1999). To subscribe, or to see a list of all previous TechKnowledge articles, visit http://www.cato.org/tech/tk-index.html (Additional Cato analyses of the Microsoft case include Robert Levy, "Microsoft Redux: Anatomy of a Baseless Lawsuit," September 30, 1999, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa352.pdf ; and Robert Levy and Alan Reynolds, "Microsoft's Appealing Case," November 9, 2000, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa385.pdf. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From schear at lvcm.com Mon Aug 6 15:31:09 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:31:09 -0700 Subject: Operating the Gold Economy Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806152417.037d8008@pop3.lvcm.com> Fot those who haven't read it. A good rebuttal to Back Robert Cringely's article touting PayPal and condemning the gold economy. http://www.standardtransactions.com/paypal_is_not_gold.html From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 13:39:31 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:39:31 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Sklyarov Released On $50,000 Bail Message-ID: <3B6F0083.38F1A488@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/06/1941228.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From schear at lvcm.com Mon Aug 6 15:42:16 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:42:16 -0700 Subject: Risks of Microsoft Passport Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806154159.03ffb5a0@pop3.lvcm.com> Risks of Microsoft Passport We all know the risks of trusting DNS and the fact that users click OK when presented with certificate warnings in their browser. So what happens when you build a single sign-on model for e-commerce that leverages these technologies? You end up with some risks that users might not expect. Microsoft's ambitious Passport service uses these common Internet standards. Avi Rubin and Dave Kormann from AT&T Research Labs document the risks of the Passport system in their research report, "Risks of the Passport Single Signon Protocol". http://avirubin.com/passport.html From schear at lvcm.com Mon Aug 6 15:44:10 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:44:10 -0700 Subject: Laptop theft causing global havoc Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806154357.0400d850@pop3.lvcm.com> Laptop theft causing global havoc What do the U.S. State Department, the British military and the FBI have in common? Each of these security-centric organizations has recently lost laptops with sensitive information. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2801184,00.html From homebusinesssuccess37087 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 15:44:38 2001 From: homebusinesssuccess37087 at yahoo.com (Julie ) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:44:38 Subject: On OPRAH??? I made $2,000/4 WEEKS! Did YOU? Message-ID: <200108062031.NAA25617@toad.com> Will You Live BELOW POVERTY LEVEL? ATTENTION: You have received this message because you have recently posted to my FFA pages, belong to the same safelists, clubs, email lists, or have emailed me with your business opportunity. If you believe that you have received this in error I sincerely apologize. Per the proposed H.R. 3113 Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act of 2000, further transmissions to you by me may be stopped at no cost to you by forwarding this email to REMOVE at: homebusinesssuccess37087 at yahoo.com Thank you! It is no longer possible to work for 30 or 40 years and retire comfortably. Recently published research and studies show us that that the overwhelming majority of seniors are now, TODAY, LIVING BELOW POVERTY LEVEL. Are YOU willing to live that way after YEARS OF HARD WORK? Retire Quickly is a 100% debt-free company in 70+ countries. A solid company with strong growth worldwide. Excellent representative/customer retention rate to date. Excellent tax benefits. Let Retire Quickly Corporation teach you how to quickly and effectively reduce and/or eliminate personal/business debt, protect your assets, and plan for your future needs with their flagship proprietary eCourse, "How to Retire Quickly." The lesson on debt-free living alone will save most people hundreds of thousands of dollars in their lifetimes. Great educational value at $49.95 and tax deductible(US). NEW Global VISA PayCard with all new enrollments. No more waiting for checks to arrive or post. Immediate access to your money wherever VISA is accepted, thousands of locations worldwide. All bonuses and commissions are paid in US$'s. Fantastic for all International Reps! Complete website within seconds of enrolling as customer or representative. Tremendous income potential. Very low retail/rep start up costs. Fully automated system with great tools to build your business. Training provided. eCourse is also available immediately as a stand-alone product for our retail customers. Visit my website http://www.retirequickly.com/64904. Enroll for your FREE 3 Day Trial. Be sure to order my FREE gift to you, "Seven Secrets to Earning $100,000 From Home" without obligation. What do you have to lose? Thanks for your time! Julie Mills 615-444-4487 (Central) From sales at pennywize.com Sun Aug 5 22:44:54 2001 From: sales at pennywize.com (Pennywize Sales) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:44:54 +1000 Subject: Pennywize announces new FREE service Message-ID: <000000000000.f75NhJ0201JQ@localhost> Pennywize is proud to announce its new free service for webmasters. This new free service makes means that every webmaster with a pay site can now afford to be protected against password traders and dictionary attacks. The free service includes the following features: o Complete FREE to sign up - no credit card needed o You can protect as many sites as you like o Instant access once you sign up o Get all your sites protected within 5 minutes of signing up Pennywize is the leading password trader protection software for webmasters. It is used on over 1,000 websites world wide, and is recommended by many ISP and billing companies to their clientele. It currently works with Apache web servers only although there is a Windows beta being tested currently. If you would like to participate in this testing, please contact us. For more information, please goto http://www.pennywize.com Pennywize From schear at lvcm.com Mon Aug 6 15:45:00 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:45:00 -0700 Subject: Russian programmer out on bail Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806154446.0400d990@pop3.lvcm.com> Russian programmer out on bail Three weeks after his arrest, Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov is out on bail. Sklyarov was ordered to post $50,000 bail Monday in San Jose Federal Court. He is not allowed to travel outside of Northern California. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Aug. 23. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6794178.html?tag=mn_hd From pzakas at toucancapital.com Mon Aug 6 13:03:28 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:03:28 -0400 Subject: "Space War" In-Reply-To: <200108061817.OAA06982@smtp6.mindspring.com> Message-ID: > John Young Wrote: > Don't overlook what is reportedly happening on the back side of > the moon. The URL for an IF-mooncam was posted here a while > ago. The stream is encrypted but with weak crypto -- the > crypto-processor is 1968-9 vintage. The cam is part of a data > package placed on the dark side in a classified operation. Signals > bounced off a reflector stationed at the very edge of the moon's > profile. > > What else is being done there remains to be disclosed. Two applications I've heard of: 1. Here's an excerpt from a US Navy press release: "Jim Trexler was Lorenzen's project engineer for PAMOR (PAssive MOon Relay, a.k.a. 'Moon Bounce'), which collected interior Soviet electronics and communication signals reflected from the moon." URL: http://www.pao.nrl.navy.mil/rel-00/32-00r.html 2. On another site: "...The new Liberty was a 455-foot-long spy ship crammed with listening equipment and specialists to operate it. The vessel's most distinctive piece of hardware was a sixteen-foot-wide dish antenna that could bounce intercepted intelligence off the moon to a receiving station in Maryland in a ten-thousand-watt microwave signal that enabled it to transmit large quantities of information without giving away the Liberty's location.* *The system, known as TRSSCOMM, for Technical Research Ship Special Communications, had to be pointed at a particular spot on the moon while a computer compensated for the ship's rolling and pitching. The computers and the antenna s hydraulic steering mechanism did not work well together, creating frequent problems." URL: http://www.euronet.nl/~rembert/echelon/db08.htm phillip From AppleID at apple.com Mon Aug 6 09:12:14 2001 From: AppleID at apple.com (AppleID at apple.com) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:12:14 GMT Subject: Your Apple ID Information Message-ID: <200108061612.QAA100756@thing3.corp.apple.com> As you requested, here is your Apple ID information: Apple ID : cypherpunks at toad.com Password : writecode Thank you for your interest in Apple and its products. From pzakas at toucancapital.com Mon Aug 6 13:13:09 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:13:09 -0400 Subject: Apollo 11 - For all mankind In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Bear wrote: > Note the commentary that it was "strictly a symbolic activity, as the > United Nations Treaty on Outer Space precluded any territorial claim." I thought it would be useful to post the US Dept of State's link to the actual outer space treaty: http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/space1.html The treaty section of interest to me is: "...The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited..." this doesn't seem to expressly prohibit the activity referred to in the US Navy press release I sent out earlier today, but at the same time the spirit of the outer space treaty doesn't seem to support the navy/SIGINT activities, either. phillip From freematt at coil.com Mon Aug 6 13:31:59 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:31:59 -0400 Subject: Vinge's 'True Names' Classic To Be Reissued Message-ID: ************************* Vinge's 'True Names' classic to be reissued August 2, 2001 ************************* Vernor Vinge's classic scifi novel True Names is being reissued by Tor Books in True Names and the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier," a collection of stories and essays by computer scientists, due out in December. A movie may be in the works. http://www.tor.com/ http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=394&m=190 ### ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From schear at lvcm.com Mon Aug 6 16:56:26 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 16:56:26 -0700 Subject: California victims can't sue gunmakers Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806165535.04161c80@pop3.lvcm.com> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Victims cannot sue weapons manufacturers for damages when criminals use their products illegally, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday in a closely watched case testing gunmaker liability. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/06/california.guns.ap/index.html From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 15:14:16 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:14:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: Inferno: Fw: Risks of the Passport Single Signon Protocol (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:48:57 -0400 From: Any Mouse Subject: Inferno: Fw: Risks of the Passport Single Signon Protocol ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 4:49 PM Subject: Risks of the Passport Single Signon Protocol > Risks of the Passport Single Signon Protocol > by David P. Kormann and Aviel D. Rubin > > Passport is a protocol that enables users to sign onto many different > merchants' web pages by authenticating themselves only once to a common > server. This is important because users tend to pick poor (guessable) user > names and passwords and to repeat them at different sites. Passport is > notable as it is being very widely deployed by Microsoft. At the time of this > writing, Passport boasts 40 million consumers and more than 400 > authentications per second on average. We examine the Passport single signon > protocol, and identify several risks and attacks. We discuss a flaw that we > discovered in the interaction of Passport and Netscape browsers that leaves > a user logged in while informing him that he has successfully logged out. > Finally, we suggest several areas of improvement. > > http://avirubin.com/passport.html > > -- > Elias Levy > SecurityFocus.com > http://www.securityfocus.com/ > Si vis pacem, para bellum From freematt at coil.com Mon Aug 6 14:19:31 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:19:31 -0400 Subject: The Feds Want To Write Your Software Message-ID: From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 6 09:05:14 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:05:14 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010806081116.008ca230@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > And nautilus and PGPfone. Maybe on a pocket PC if they have > decent audio. How do you make money on this approach, though? By selling wireless bandwidth? Hardware? Leather accessoires and GUI skins? Consulting? I don't think the apps themselves should be commercial. It only leads to featuritis, lousy code and backdoors. > Interop with an existing PC/Mac based tool might help. Definitely. There are, supposedly people out there who do VoIP from their desktops, but I never met any. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From magnasocietal at yahoo.com Mon Aug 6 18:42:58 2001 From: magnasocietal at yahoo.com (info) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:42:58 Subject: $500 per sponsor -Major freedom movement - No taxes on the Internet -Free trade cyberzones Message-ID: <200108070238.f772cf514929@rigel.cyberpass.net> "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- John Galt, Atlas Shrugged High-Level Dynamics We are building a society through membership and from the membership dues we are buying an island in the Caribbean. This island will be a sovereign principality with a substantial hosting facility as its epicenter and core business. Charter Members are able to participate in a tremendous income opportunity and will have the option in the future to purchase virtual residences with time-share options or own actual physical homes complete with residency status. A Mandate of Freedom We are building a physical and virtual community on the natural resources of ones and zeros. Magna Societal has over 1000+ web fluent members who have committed to building a global free trade cyberzone in the Caribbean. Magna Societal is an internet-centric society who's constitutional mandate is a membership based tax-free and debt free community built on the foundation of absolute freedom of unlimited enterprise and spirit. The Business of Magna Societal The national economy will be established on a multitude of fiber optic backbones which will be opened to the world for offshore banking, corporate services, interactive TV content storage and distribution, gaming and global hosting for best of breed ASP Solutions. Magna's land plan has over 40,000 virtual residences, 4,000 single-family homes, 35 multi-use towers. Income Opportunity All Charter Members are paid a referral fee of $500 per member referred. In addition there is a tremendous residual opportunity from renewal fees, bonuses and purchases in the future. The Tools: Charter Members receive an international asset protection trust from an established jurisdiction ($2,000 Value), an identical website to the corporate website (with your company name under the green arc) and we provide you with a registered certificate of membership. Join us today! For the confidential website information please call toll free 1-866-811-5324 or 011- 507-214-8705 Magna Societal is a registered foreign SA with a Board of Directors, financial controls and audited financials which are made available to Charter Members on an annual basis. Magna Societal is not a network marketing company. Please read all disclaimers, as they are made available. We comply with proposed federal legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail by providing you with a method for your e-mail address to be permanently removed from our database and any future mailings from our company. To remove your address, please send a reply e-mail message with the word REMOVE in the subject line. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 6 10:34:19 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:34:19 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > in the USA. That would wipe out well over 70% of the remailers, > leaving a very small universe indeed to monitor. In case this happens I'll be happy to run one on a DSL line. I'm sure many others will suddenly see the light, too. It would also motivate people to write worms with remailer functionality instead of the usual stupid DoS cargo. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 17:35:35 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 19:35:35 -0500 Subject: GAO Report: U.S. Govt. Computers Open to Hackers Message-ID: <3B6F37D7.E06E7AB3@ssz.com> http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/12513.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 6 17:37:19 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 19:37:19 -0500 Subject: OPT: Distributed OSs, The State of the Art Message-ID: <3B6F383F.317476D@ssz.com> http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1112/byt20010806s0003/20010806_bar.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 6 21:50:36 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 21:50:36 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages Message-ID: <200108070451.f774p8521200@slack.lne.com> Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising. Went to a site, www.imdb.com, to check something about a film. Up popped a doubleclick.net ad. In front of the main page, obscuring it. I clicked the close box. Up popped a _different_ ad. I clicked the close box. Yep, up popped a third ad box. I closed it. I think it stopped at this point. Of course, the usual ads were filling the right third of the screen (Amazon ads for DVDs, books, etc.). And the top part of the screen had an annoying Java-enabled ad with a blinking package and the message "Claim your FREE PRIZE!" and another one screaming "Find a loan for me!" Part of the rest of the screen was IMDB hyping itself, offering special accounts, etc. Still, I figured that having 40% of my screen area left for actual _content_ was part of the deal. But as soon as I clicked on the details I wanted, the boxes obscuring the content appeared _again_. Again, I closed the box, again up popped a new one, and so on. Perhaps we are in the End Times. Surely this advertising model cannot last long. Maybe this is how remailers will have to finance operations. (There are better models, of course.) --Tim May From petro at bounty.org Mon Aug 6 21:52:26 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 21:52:26 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <20010805113304.A18963@cluebot.com> References: <200108050424.f754Oax09164@slack.lne.com> <20010805113304.A18963@cluebot.com> Message-ID: At 11:33 AM -0400 8/5/01, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Last I checked, the vast bulk of remailers were in North America and >Europe. Given sufficient provocation (Bush twins kidnapped, Osama >talking biochemwomdterror in DC), I could easily see a coordinated set >of pre-dawn raids to "gather evidence" and seize computers as part of >a criminal investigation. Obviously the servers would have to be held >as potential evidence for a trial - did they keep logs? our techs will >find out - which could take a decade. This would cripple the current >remailer network and generate almost no public outcry beyond the >cypherpunks and such. Were that to happen, I'd bet a bunch of new remailers would be in place before the heliocopters were finished refueling. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. From petro at bounty.org Mon Aug 6 21:57:47 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 21:57:47 -0700 Subject: Stranger than anything Rand ever imagined In-Reply-To: <200108051755.f75HtVx12078@slack.lne.com> References: <200108051755.f75HtVx12078@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: At 10:54 AM -0700 8/5/01, Tim May wrote: >On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 09:29 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> At 09:15 AM 8/5/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >>> So, they ARE asking Congress to try and circumvent that nasty 'ol >>> Commerce Clause. It should be interesting to see what Congress thinks >>> it can fashion th will pass SC muster. >> Actually, this may be one of the few areas -- actual interstate trade >> and taxes -- that come close to the meaning of the Commerce Clause. I >> suspect a challenge will have to be made on public policy grounds >> rather than constitutional ones. >California's energy crisis (cough) could be solved overnight if dynamos >could be attached to the Founders spinning in their graves. Nah, they're mostly buried on the East Coast, so the electricity would have to come across lines owned by "those greedy out of state power companies". Never mind that those greedy out of state power companies were charging less per MW than in-state producers. >Item: California is seeking to collect taxes on a transaction which did >not occur in California. Sounds like a tariff on goods entering >California. Sounds like what the commerce clause was designed explicitly >to stop. If you are talking about the same thing that Declan is, then at least 1/2 of the transaction *did* occur in California. (I'm not in disagreement with the rest). -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. From jya at pipeline.com Mon Aug 6 22:00:52 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 22:00:52 -0700 Subject: Public Records in USA v. Sklyarov Message-ID: <200108070200.WAA20840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Cryptome has obtained 60 pages of public records filed in USA v. Dmitry Sklyarov: five pages of Court documents and 55 pages of submissions in support of Dmitry's character and achievements. They are offered in compressed TIFF format: Court Documents: Order Setting Conditions of Release and Appearance Bond, August 6, 2001 http://cryptome.org/ds-bond-order.tif (1 page, 87KB) Magistrate Judge Minute Order, August 6, 2001 http://cryptome.org/ds-minute-order.tif (1 page, 83KB) Warrant for Arrest, July 11, 2001 http://cryptome.org/ds-arrest-warrant.tif (1 page, 43KB) USA Motion to Seal the Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant, July 11, 2001 http://cryptome.org/ds-motion-to-seal.tif (1 page, 42KB) Sealing Order by Magistrate Patricia Trumbull, July 11, 2001 http://cryptome.org/ds-order-to-seal.tif (1 page, 28KB) These five are available in a Zipped file: http://cryptome.org/sklyarov-orders.zip (5 pages, 276KB) The Criminal Complaint was also in the public records but heretofore published: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-sklyarov.htm Submissions in Support of Dmitry: English and Russian documents -- consulate letters, certificates of education and achievement, letters of colleagues, friends and Elcomsoft clients -- in a Zipped file of compressed TIFF images: http://cryptome.org/sklyarov-vouch.zip (55 pages, 2.82MB) From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 6 22:18:15 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:18:15 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <20010807045235.8488.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <200108070518.f775If521393@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 6, 2001, at 09:52 PM, Dr. Evil wrote: >> Starian, the company founded by Eric Blossom and others, had a 3DES >> unit >> the size of an external modem that worked as described. (I have one.) >> >> The problem is the "fax effect": who ya gonna call? > > No, in the case of Starium, the problem is decidely not the fax > effect. The problem is that they aren't selling them! You can't buy > one, which basically guarantees that no one you call will have one. A > corollary to this problem often affects high-tech companies: they have > an awesome new technology, but they haven't sorted out how to market > it. I bought one, and I know of several others who have bought them. As to whether they are _currently_ selling any models, I can't say. But this doesn't change my "fax effect" point. > Perhaps those groups have some use for these things, but in my case, I > would create a "cell" of two: me and my lawyer. Client-attorney > communications are legally protected; this just provides a technical > means to implement an established, almost sacrosanct legal protection. Yes, of course. We know things like this. > I don't think that's true at all! A company with huge resources (like > Miscrosoft) can solve the fax effect by creating standards (often > "closed" or proprietary standards) and getting things widely deployed > by buying major partners, but that is certainly not the only way to do > it. You don't need a lot of resources or a wide deployment to solve > the fax effect. I imagine that the fax machine overcame the fax > effect when a company with, for example, an east coast and a west > coast office bought two of them and then could send documents coast to > coast in seconds. They didn't care that no one else had one; it was > boosted productivity immediately. You clearly don't understand the usual meaning of "fax effect." Fax machines have existed in the form you describe for close to a century. This was not what writers in the early 90s were referring to when they spoke of the "fax effect." > Let's say that for some reason a > company needs to send documents within 24 hours, and the only two > options are couriers on flights, or this new-fangled fax machine. A > pair of fax machines pays for itself within the first few documents > that need to be sent, even if no other fax machines exist in the > universe. Sooner or later, there will be a bunch of companies with > two offices which use these things internally, and then one day, in a > blinding flash, someone at Company A needs to send a document to > Company B, and remembers that his friend there mentioned that they > also have a "telphone facsimile machine", and in an instant, the world > changes forever! Naive. Faxes were available in the 1970s, and earlier. They did not "change the world overnight." For one thing, they were not accepted as legal docs. For another, transmission speeds were too slow. (We had fax machines to our remote plants in 1974, but we almost always used TWX and Telex transmissions. And they didn't "change the world overnight." They were just another channel.) The fax effect is the same as the phone effect. Your analysis would have had the first two phone changing the world overnight. No. What changed was when a significant fraction of one's suppliers, delivery agencies, shipping companies, customers, etc. all could be reached via a compatible, interoperable standard. The "phone effect." >> ObSpoliationClaim: "Those who buy such machines are obviously trying to >> hide evidence. Mr. Happy Fun Court is "not amused."" > > That is very true. Someone trying to defeat a charge of being a boss > in a drug gang would certainly not be helped if they found Starium > units in his house and in houses of people who were distributing > drugs. This would look bad for Starium, too. Irony is wasted on some people. --Tim May From shamrock at cypherpunks.to Tue Aug 7 00:13:00 2001 From: shamrock at cypherpunks.to (Lucky Green) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:13:00 -0700 Subject: (file sharing) morpheus rules! In-Reply-To: <9kff8r$l5b$1@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Ian wrote about Morpheus, quoting georgemw at speakeasy.net: > > If not, > >do they at least make the communication protocol open > >so you could build your own client if you wanted to? > > No. > > But of course, that's never stopped us before... Hmm, their specs claim "Fully encrypted to protect privacy, transmissions and unauthorized intrusions". http://musiccity.com/en/frameset_web_fl_teal.html [Though even a file sharing system with broken crypto might make a suitable component of a larger, secure, system. I have never used Morpheus and have no opinion on the system's suitability to task]. --Lucky From aimee.farr at pobox.com Mon Aug 6 22:36:39 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:36:39 -0500 Subject: [spam score 5.00/10.0 -pobox] RE: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > jamesd at echeque.com[SMTP:jamesd at echeque.com] wrote: > > > > I am unable to reconcile Black Unicorn's recent post, where he denounces > > almost the entire cypherpunk program as illegal by current > legal standards > > and a manifestation of foolish ignorance of the law and > obstinate refusal > > to take his wise advice, with the conjecture that Black Unicorn is aware > > of > > current recommended best practice in record keeping. > > > I've mostly been staying out of this stormy little teacup, but I'll > concur that BU is overreaching himself. When he starts to claim > that writing security software to best industry practices - erasing > sensitive data as soon as it's need has passed, clearing disks > and buffers, etc - all practices mandated for meeting certain > government FIPS levels, and widely documented as standard - > when he claims that writing programs correctly could get me > in trouble > - then it's time to downgrade my estimates of his > knowledge and expertise. > > Peter Trei You guys are acting like Uni said, "THOU SHALT NOT WRITE CODE." Put down your pungi sticks. ~Aimee From measl at mfn.org Mon Aug 6 23:04:29 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:04:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > Were that to happen, I'd bet a bunch of new remailers would be > in place before the heliocopters were finished refueling. Obviously you don't run one: the resources required are _not_ trivial, at least from the bandwidth perspective. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill.stewart at pobox.com Tue Aug 7 01:47:43 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 01:47:43 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108070451.f774p8521200@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010807014259.02f4bb30@idiom.com> At 09:50 PM 08/06/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising. >... >But as soon as I clicked on the details I wanted, the boxes obscuring the >content appeared _again_. Again, I closed the box, again up popped a new >one, and so on. > >Perhaps we are in the End Times. Surely this advertising model cannot last >long. >Maybe this is how remailers will have to finance operations. It'd be a fine way to finance Assassination Politics, except the people advertising that way are also the primary targets :-) Most of those annoying things use JavaScript, which you should normally keep turned off unless there's a page you *really* want to see badly enough that you're willing to risk allowing to run dangerous stupid code on your browser. Some of them may use Java instead. A slightly cuter technique is to pop up the new advertising window *behind* the windows with the real content. When you're done reading the real windows and close them, the ad's sitting there politely waiting for you, trying to sell you that X10 camera yet again. From bill.stewart at pobox.com Tue Aug 7 02:01:44 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 02:01:44 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010806081116.008ca230@pop.sprynet.com> References: <20010804224758.10845.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010807015216.0352d1b0@idiom.com> > >> What's up with voice encryption? I'm ready to use it. I'm ready to > > > >Me, too. Let's do it, then: http://www.speakfreely.org/ > >And nautilus and PGPfone. Maybe on a pocket PC if they have >decent audio. How do you make money on this approach, though? > > >We've got a lack of user base problem. I'm expecting voice encryption in > >software when PDA (or wearable) with ~10 kBps wireless connectivity become > >commonplace. CDPD is available flat rate in much of the country; not sure if the performance is adequate for voice, though. (I haven't tried it, but unfortunately I'd guess "not close"... the throughput is about 19.2 before overhead, ~14+ after, but there's likely to be way too much jitter and/or latency because it rides alongside the voice cellular.) Circuit-switched cellular modems are available, but too slow for most speech systems, though perhaps the 5.6kbps coders will work. Metricom, of course, is in the process of biting the dust hard this time. 802.11 networks are starting to emerge rapidly, if the recent WEP crypto cracks don't kill them off and if they find their own business models (Starbucks wins by having you sit in their stores buying overpriced coffee; airport-located systems win by charging business travellers money. Most US-Wandering Cypherpunks who need cryptophones while travelling are within two blocks of a Starbucks :-) 2.5G GPRS Wireless is available in about half of Seattle, and should be available much more widely in a year or so, so depending on the pricing model it might be usable. The general question of "How do you make money on encrypted IP voice?" is a subset of "How do you make money on IP voice?", a hotly contested issue in the market right now. Wireless companies will be happy to charge by the minute, and the coffeeshop pricing was mentioned above. From FrogRemailer at lne.com Mon Aug 6 19:54:09 2001 From: FrogRemailer at lne.com (Frog2) Date: 7 Aug 2001 02:54:09 -0000 Subject: Good News Source Message-ID: <1HNGC51P37110.2042708333@frog.nyarlatheotep.org> This will sound crazy to most readers, but the "World Socialist Web Site" ("Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International") is a pretty good source of news. You have to ignore some jibes at free markets and the like, but I like it better than the New York Times, The Economist, CNN, and Wired. The articles are oriented to providing information rather than entertainment. (No reporters reporting on reporting with cute leads like 'If it's true that Al Gore created the Internet, then I created the "Al Gore created the Internet" story.') For example, this article on HIV in rural China is good: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/aids-a06.shtml HIV spread like crazy in rural China because commercial blood collection centers mixed the blood of several people before separation and return to the donors. "The operators were generally government bodies, such as hospitals, or private entrepreneurs connected with government officials." The Chinese government has discouraged efforts to honestly educate the population about HIV, including banning ads recommending the use of condoms as a prevention measure. While the U.S. government is not as backward, the article strikingly illustrates the problem of governments that view change with fear and suspicion and actively prevent constructive responses to serious problems. While China has achieved more horrific results, the basic behavior of the U.S. government towards cloning, cryptography, and the Net, is not fundamentally different. From saveonprescriptions at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 03:04:06 2001 From: saveonprescriptions at yahoo.com (Lead Generation) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:04:06 Subject: Save 30% to 65% on Prescription Costs for You or Your Loved Ones Message-ID: <200108071257.f77Cvt531928@rigel.cyberpass.net> This is a one time mailing. You are not on a mailing list. If you do not know of someone who can save on their prescription costs please delete this message and you will not be mailed again. If you do know of someone who would benefit from this program please do them a favor and forward this on to them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you spend more than $30 per month on prescriptions? Would you spend $7.00 per month to save 30% to 65% on your prescription costs? Would you spend $7.00 per month if you could use any local or national pharmacy or even mail order? To qualify for this phenomenol program you must: * Spend at least $30 per month on prescriptions * NOT carry prescription insurance or a discount card with the exception of: AARP, People's, Medicare or a drug store discount card * Have a checking account or hold a major credit card * Live in the United States of America If you qualify and would like to be contacted by our customer care specialists please send a message to: saveonprescriptions at yahoo.com or just reply to this email with your name, telephone number including area code, time zone and preferred time of day to be called, (morning, afternoon or evening) in the body of the message. A customer care specialist will call to confirm your interest, contact information and will also ask you the following: * What do you spend per month on medications? ** Specifically what medications, strength, quantity and price that you pay * You also qualify for an optical plan at no additional charge if you have a checking account or credit card. Do you have either of these? Our customer care specialist will also provide you with the Better Business Bureau number to call and our registered number so you can check us out for your safety and peace of mind. From saveonprescriptions at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 03:04:07 2001 From: saveonprescriptions at yahoo.com (Lead Generation) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:04:07 Subject: Save 30% to 65% on Prescription Costs for You or Your Loved Ones Message-ID: <200108071014.FAA31417@einstein.ssz.com> This is a one time mailing. You are not on a mailing list. If you do not know of someone who can save on their prescription costs please delete this message and you will not be mailed again. If you do know of someone who would benefit from this program please do them a favor and forward this on to them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you spend more than $30 per month on prescriptions? Would you spend $7.00 per month to save 30% to 65% on your prescription costs? Would you spend $7.00 per month if you could use any local or national pharmacy or even mail order? To qualify for this phenomenol program you must: * Spend at least $30 per month on prescriptions * NOT carry prescription insurance or a discount card with the exception of: AARP, People's, Medicare or a drug store discount card * Have a checking account or hold a major credit card * Live in the United States of America If you qualify and would like to be contacted by our customer care specialists please send a message to: saveonprescriptions at yahoo.com or just reply to this email with your name, telephone number including area code, time zone and preferred time of day to be called, (morning, afternoon or evening) in the body of the message. A customer care specialist will call to confirm your interest, contact information and will also ask you the following: * What do you spend per month on medications? ** Specifically what medications, strength, quantity and price that you pay * You also qualify for an optical plan at no additional charge if you have a checking account or credit card. Do you have either of these? Our customer care specialist will also provide you with the Better Business Bureau number to call and our registered number so you can check us out for your safety and peace of mind. From goin2winn2001 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 03:49:43 2001 From: goin2winn2001 at yahoo.com (goin2winn2001 at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:49:43 Subject: OFFERING FREE MONEY GRANTS Message-ID: <200108071144.f77BiH530161@rigel.cyberpass.net> THE WANNA BEE FOUNDATION Let us put the pieces together for YOU The Wanna Bee Foundation is NOT a Multi-Level Company. It has NO matrix or payout. We are not putting hundreds of thousands of people into MLM programs, not even hundreds, only a few will get this opportunity to have a chance to become a member of the "Wanna Bee Foundation". Your entry is voted on by the members. You are then placed into 3 MLM companies (FREE). Only after you are in profit in at least 2 of them, are you required to pay your monthly dues to each of the companies. The annual fee is $29.95. Each individual company will send you a recruiting kit after you become a member. GUARANTEE -- We guarantee you to be in profit before you are asked to complete the applications FOR THE INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES. We will mail out, at no extra cost to you, from one to three million offers a month. All members joining from this emailer will be placed in all of your downlines, ALL THIS FOR $29.95. PLEASE VISIT: http://3451691058/joinwbf FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS EXCITING OPPORTUNITY. This message is sent in compliance of the new email bill HR 1910. Under Bill HR 1910 passed by the 106th US Congress on May 24, 1999, this message can not be considered spam as long as we include the way to be removed. Per Section HR 1910., please type REMOVE in the subject line and reply to this email. All removal requests are handled personally and immediately If you are accepted by the WBF, they pay your way into all three companies (any kit fees, plus first month fees). When you are in profit in at least two of the three companies, you are asked to join, and then have 10 days to respond or you lose your position on the team. As a Safelist Emailer member, they mail the WBF information with your ID on it. You even get a copy of the leads that your email advertisement generated (generally between 800 to 3000 per month). You may also use the same leads for any purpose you choose, they can be emailed to you. Now, with each WBF member getting from one to three million email adds sent each month, that adds up to millions + millions of people world wide getting our message each and every month. With this system, getting only one one-hundredth of one percent on the Internet, this will still put new members in each company for YOU every month. Then, the new members will team with you to do more mailings If you are accepted by the WBF, they pay your way into all three companies (any kit fees, plus first month fees). When you are in profit in at least two of the three companies, you are asked to join, and then have 10 days to respond or you lose your position on the team. As a Safelist Emailer member, they mail the WBF information with your ID on it. You even get a copy of the leads that your email advertisement generated (generally between 800 to 3000 per month). You may also use the same leads for any purpose you choose, they can be emailed to you. Now, with each WBF member getting from one to three million email adds sent each month, that adds up to millions + millions of people world wide getting our message each and every month. With this system, getting only one one-hundredth of one percent on the Internet, this will still put new members in each company for YOU every month. Then, the new members will team with you to do more mailings From FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com Tue Aug 7 01:31:11 2001 From: FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com (Your Membership Newsletter) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 04:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your Membership Exchange, #443 Message-ID: <20010807083111.DCF482DBE3@rovdb001.roving.com> Your Membership Exchange, Issue #443 (August 7, 2001) ______________________________________________________ Your Membership Daily Exchange >>>>>>>>>>> Issue #443 <> 08-07-01 <<<<<<<<<<<< Your place to exchange ideas, ask questions, swap links, and share your skills! ______________________________________________________ Removal/Unsubscribe instructions are included at the bottom for members who do not wish to receive additional issues of this publication. ______________________________________________________ You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com ______________________________________________________ Today's Special Announcement: Get 1000 Visitors to Your Site - FREE! "Discover how a 26 year old Philosophy Major earned over $70,000 Online last year. And how *You Can, Too* - GUARANTEED!" Finally, a system that's so refined, you're Guaranteed to make money, or it's *100% FREE*! There are only 3steps2profit on the Internet... Learn them, and gain *Your Personal Freedom*. Click below NOW: http://www.3steps2profit.com/cgi-bin/profit.cgi?id=13023 ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ >> Q & A QUESTIONS: - Netscape 6 ruined all my pictures? - What does CPM mean? >> MEMBER SHOWCASES >> MEMBER *REVIEWS* - Sites to Review: #143, #144, #145, #146 & #147! - Site #142 Reviewed! ______________________________________________________ >>>>>> QUESTIONS & ANSWERS <<<<<< Submit your questions & answers to MyInput at AEOpublishing.com QUESTIONS: From vivien851 at 21cn.com Tue Aug 7 02:36:45 2001 From: vivien851 at 21cn.com (vivien yu) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 04:36:45 -0500 Subject: Inqiry from Shanghai Small and Medium (Trade Development) Service Center! Message-ID: <200108070936.f779agZ02233@ak47.algebra.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3736 bytes Desc: not available URL: From drevil at sidereal.kz Mon Aug 6 21:52:35 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 7 Aug 2001 04:52:35 -0000 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <200108061642.f76GgDx17047@slack.lne.com> (message from Tim May on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:41:55 -0700) References: <200108061642.f76GgDx17047@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010807045235.8488.qmail@sidereal.kz> > Starian, the company founded by Eric Blossom and others, had a 3DES unit > the size of an external modem that worked as described. (I have one.) > > The problem is the "fax effect": who ya gonna call? No, in the case of Starium, the problem is decidely not the fax effect. The problem is that they aren't selling them! You can't buy one, which basically guarantees that no one you call will have one. A corollary to this problem often affects high-tech companies: they have an awesome new technology, but they haven't sorted out how to market it. > It works well for "cells" consisting of trading partners, drug > dealers, freedom fighters, etc. They can just buy several of them > for their members. Perhaps those groups have some use for these things, but in my case, I would create a "cell" of two: me and my lawyer. Client-attorney communications are legally protected; this just provides a technical means to implement an established, almost sacrosanct legal protection. If those guys were smart, they would read Crossing the Chasm, and pick a small target market to market to, and lawyers and their clients might be a good one. > Solving the fax effect problem happens when a _standard_ is widely > deployed, or when some major deals with cellphone vendors happen. I > understand Starian has been trying to get a cellphone version > designed-in. I don't think that's true at all! A company with huge resources (like Miscrosoft) can solve the fax effect by creating standards (often "closed" or proprietary standards) and getting things widely deployed by buying major partners, but that is certainly not the only way to do it. You don't need a lot of resources or a wide deployment to solve the fax effect. I imagine that the fax machine overcame the fax effect when a company with, for example, an east coast and a west coast office bought two of them and then could send documents coast to coast in seconds. They didn't care that no one else had one; it was boosted productivity immediately. Let's say that for some reason a company needs to send documents within 24 hours, and the only two options are couriers on flights, or this new-fangled fax machine. A pair of fax machines pays for itself within the first few documents that need to be sent, even if no other fax machines exist in the universe. Sooner or later, there will be a bunch of companies with two offices which use these things internally, and then one day, in a blinding flash, someone at Company A needs to send a document to Company B, and remembers that his friend there mentioned that they also have a "telphone facsimile machine", and in an instant, the world changes forever! > ObSpoliationClaim: "Those who buy such machines are obviously trying to > hide evidence. Mr. Happy Fun Court is "not amused."" That is very true. Someone trying to defeat a charge of being a boss in a drug gang would certainly not be helped if they found Starium units in his house and in houses of people who were distributing drugs. This would look bad for Starium, too. That's why they should go after a market that involves communications which are already legally protected: lawyer-client calls, law enforcement agency internal use, multinational corporations remote offices, perhaps some token human rights workers. If 95% of the users are socially acceptable, it won't matter that there are 5% who aren't. If 95% of the users are socially unacceptable, it won't matter if Mother Teresa and the Pope are the other 5%, because the thing will get banned. In my humble opinion, the c'punks would be a lot more interesting if they spent more time talking about marketing and PR and a lot less (perhaps none) time talking about silly legal points and technical hacks. Do you want to be right, or do you want to win? Put it another way: do lawyers spend a lot of time coming up with obscure legal arguments for why their client is not guilty, or do they spend a lot of time on jury psychology? Because ultimately the law is enforced by jurors who make emotional decisions, and they base them on things like their judgement of the character of the people involved, more than they base them on obscure legal theories and incomprehensible technical points. Same goes for voters and cops, in fact. From declan at well.com Tue Aug 7 04:13:59 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:13:59 -0400 Subject: Federal cops to get more power in DC Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010807071329.0213a5f0@mail.well.com> Great. Just what DC residents need. --Declan SOCIAL ISSUES D.C. Metropolitan Police and the Federal Protective Service News conference to announce a compact that will allow federal police forces to patrol and make arrests for D.C. Code offenses that occur near their agencies. Participants: Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.; D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey; Kenneth Wainstein, acting U.S. attorney and Andre Jordan , director, Federal Protective Service Location: HC-9, U.S. Capitol. 10 a.m. Contact: Joyce Patterson, 202-225-8050 **NEW** From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 7 07:27:42 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:27:42 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010806081116.008ca230@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010807072742.008d77e0@pop.sprynet.com> At 06:05 PM 8/6/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > >> And nautilus and PGPfone. Maybe on a pocket PC if they have >> decent audio. How do you make money on this approach, though? > >By selling wireless bandwidth? Hardware? Leather accessoires and GUI >skins? Consulting? The future of crypto is selling faceplates... >I don't think the apps themselves should be commercial. It only leads to >featuritis, lousy code and backdoors. Yeah, you need open code to be trusted, but this leads to the bizmodel problems ("opportunities"). "Integration services" / "branding" for the less competent/more busy/less interested, perhaps. From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 7 07:38:17 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:38:17 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <200108061642.f76GgDx17047@slack.lne.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010806081116.008ca230@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010807073817.008cbce0@pop.sprynet.com> At 09:41 AM 8/6/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >Starian, the company founded by Eric Blossom and others, had a 3DES unit >the size of an external modem that worked as described. (I have one.) Did you buy it anonymously? That's a problem with low-serial-number devices. >The problem is the "fax effect": who ya gonna call? Thus my suggestion that interop with a guy with a computer/speaker/mic would be a selling point. >It works well for "cells" consisting of trading partners, drug dealers, >freedom fighters, etc. They can just buy several of them for their >members. Telecommuters. Also it would be cool to have your phone answering machine use crypto when you dialed it up. Computers are sometimes phone answering machines nowadays. >Solving the fax effect problem happens when a _standard_ is widely >deployed, or when some major deals with cellphone vendors happen. I >understand Starian has been trying to get a cellphone version >designed-in. Sure. If Starion Corp. had ridden the hockey stick and become 'the' standard we'd all be pretty happy, even wannabe competitors, for having a de-facto standard to code to. >ObSpoliationClaim: "Those who buy such machines are obviously trying to >hide evidence. Mr. Happy Fun Court is "not amused."" Do not smile at the man in the black dress with a hammer. From declan at well.com Tue Aug 7 04:38:47 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:38:47 -0400 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: ; from measl@mfn.org on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 01:04:29AM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20010807073846.A18227@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 01:04:29AM -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > > > Were that to happen, I'd bet a bunch of new remailers would be > > in place before the heliocopters were finished refueling. > > Obviously you don't run one: the resources required are _not_ trivial, at > least from the bandwidth perspective. Also, users won't immediately know about the new remailers or have any idea of their reliability. And while the Feds may be generally sluggish, when it comes to law enforcement (that is, remailer raids on anti-terrorism pretexts), I suspect they can be quite efficient. They don't have to succeed entirely, just enough to terrorize remailer operators and/or their Internet providers. -Declan From declan at well.com Tue Aug 7 04:49:05 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:49:05 -0400 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <20010807081912.25959.qmail@sidereal.kz>; from drevil@sidereal.kz on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 08:19:12AM -0000 References: <200108070518.f775If521393@slack.lne.com> <20010807081912.25959.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <20010807074905.B18227@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 08:19:12AM -0000, Dr. Evil wrote: > I know you were being ironic, but PR is an important consideration, > far more important than is generally understood on this list. You [...] > 1. No ad hominem attacks. > > 2. No anti-governemnt ranting. > > 3. A few select incoherent ranters would need to be kicked out for > causing excessive harm to the signal-to-noise ratio. > > 4. Let's focus on PR, marketing and psychology instead of technology, > legal debate, and confrontation. > > If a bunch of people are interested I'll create it. If not, that's ok > too. I think everyone understands PR is important to some extent. But some reasons why your list is a bad idea: * the folks most interested in championing certain products are those who run companies; they're also the ones in the best position to do so * there's an opportunity cost involved in signing up with a new list. most of us nowadays are trying to cut down, not increase, subscriptions * the volume of messages on cpunx, with lne.com and a threaded mailreader, is perfectly manageable; these discussions can happen here * good ideas bubble up from the froth; saying no "confrontation" is a sure way to ensure the better posters don't subscript to your list for fear of getting the boot if they call someone a flaming idiot * the folks you do get on the list will probably not have a clue what they're talking about beyond "marketing cypherpunks is good". hint: you want some PR people and journalists, and you probably won't get 'em * cypherpunk technologies are destructive to the status quo and really can't be honestly spun in any other way -Declan From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 7 07:57:27 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:57:27 -0700 Subject: "Space War" In-Reply-To: <200108061817.OAA06982@smtp6.mindspring.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010807075727.008c2810@pop.sprynet.com> At 02:17 PM 8/6/01 -0700, John Young wrote: >Don't overlook what is reportedly happening on the back side of >the moon. The URL for an IF-mooncam was posted here a while >ago. The stream is encrypted but with weak crypto -- the >crypto-processor is 1968-9 vintage. The cam is part of a data >package placed on the dark side in a classified operation. Signals >bounced off a reflector stationed at the very edge of the moon's >profile. > >What else is being done there remains to be disclosed. > >Didn't somebody mention also mention here that there's a group >which intercepts the stream? > >I believe the Smithsonian has an archive of the small amount of >public material, and NARA has some of the classified stuff needing >clearance for access. >From the date and the discussion of moonbounce in Bamford's latest, I'd guess that listening to deep-interior soviet radar would have been a target. (The US supposedly listened to them using earth-moon-earth path; you gain a lot by listening from the moon and sending amplified telemetry back.) From jamesd at echeque.com Tue Aug 7 08:14:42 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:14:42 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: <3B6D8B1F.16520.107E827@localhost> Message-ID: <3B6FA372.12998.145524@localhost> -- James A. Donald: > > Black Unicorn's recent post, where he denounces almost the > > entire cypherpunk program as illegal by current legal > > standards and a manifestation of foolish ignorance of the law > > and obstinate refusal to take his wise advice, Aimee Farr: > No, he didn't. Every time you say "no he did not say that:", he promptly says it again in an even more extreme form, and you promptly announce you agree with him. That business about the "judge not being amused" is just the same old argument "If you use crypto that shows you have something to hide -- therefore you dare not use crypto". Lawyers have no special qualifications and authority to make such an argument, and when they make it should be met with the same ridicule as any other ignorant doofus who makes it. Most big companies, companies with pockets so deep that they attract lawsuits like flies, have decided it is better that the judge suspects they have something to hide, than that the judge knows full well that they have something they damn well should have hidden, and those deep pocketed companies routinely, on a regularly scheduled basis, in accordance with widely circulated company policy, do all the things that Black Unicorn has been telling us we must not do. No doubt it is true that one can be sued for shredding records that an enemy lawyer would have preferred one to keep, and such a lawsuit might well succeed, but a jew can be sued for discarding a ham sandwich, and such a lawsuit might well succeed also. Companies with deep pockets, continually besieged by hostile lawyers subpoenaing all sorts of information, do not seem as impressed by the fearful terror of failure to amuse judges as Black Unicorn tells us we should be. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG qmqbBFh1cJXpXWWSgMDC1f/66EGe34m2h/FZ8PkK 4WyQu6INj4rCPdEIuSJx4RNcQIVL6ovZsuoo63Dee From bear at sonic.net Tue Aug 7 08:17:35 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108070451.f774p8521200@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising. > >Went to a site, www.imdb.com, to check something about a film. Up popped >a doubleclick.net ad. In front of the main page, obscuring it. I clicked >the close box. Up popped a _different_ ad. I clicked the close box. Yep, >up popped a third ad box. I closed it. I think it stopped at this point. Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not used except to make ads more annoying. If your browser allows it (I gotta put in a plug for the registered version of Opera here) turn off animated graphics. These three simple acts will kill over 90% of web advertising. If you're actually after *content*, you can usually turn off autoloading of images as well, and that will kill almost 100% of web advertising. Bear From drevil at sidereal.kz Tue Aug 7 01:19:12 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 7 Aug 2001 08:19:12 -0000 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <200108070518.f775If521393@slack.lne.com> (message from Tim May on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:18:15 -0700) References: <200108070518.f775If521393@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010807081912.25959.qmail@sidereal.kz> > I bought one, and I know of several others who have bought them. As to > whether they are _currently_ selling any models, I can't say. But this > doesn't change my "fax effect" point. I didn't realize they had ever sold them. I have been checking their page fairly regularly for the past year and I never saw a link that said "where can I buy one of these", because I would have bought some. I have called to ask when I could buy one, and they always said, "in a few months", and now they don't answer the phone. It looks like they are out of business now, or will be soon, which is unfortunate. You're lucky you got one, I guess. > Naive. Faxes were available in the 1970s, and earlier. They did not > "change the world overnight." For one thing, they were not accepted as > legal docs. For another, transmission speeds were too slow. Yes, I am well aware that faxes existed in the 1970s. They existed in the 1920s, if you can imagine that. My point wasn't about "changing the world overnight". I do understand the fax effect: Every fax machine in the world becomes more useful the more fax machines there are. Starium is the same situation: it's more useful as more people have them. The first major use of faxes was by the Associated Press to get photos into print quickly. There was absolutely no fax effect involved in this. Most of the faxes in the world were used by just one company, AP. When they started using them in the 1930s, they probably never considered sending faxes to other companies, or using faxes for other purposes. There was a highly compelling reason for them to spend the ridiculous amounts of money these things costed, though: they could have photos of a recent event, on the other side of the country, in today's edition, and that's worth money. The fax effect didn't start with faxes until decades later. My point is that you don't need to get widespread deployment before they have a compelling use. Stariums (Staria?) have a compelling use right now, in fact, if they would only know to sell them and market them to the right group. Instead of even thinking about the fax effect, Starium should be thining of who their equivalent of Associated Press is going to be. The goal of a marketing plan is not "to overcome the fax effect" (or "have the coolest technology" or any similar thing) but rather "to find and present a use that is so compelling that people will buy them". The fax effect is irrelevant to Starium, because they don't have the resources to initiate that effect. So they need to find some other compelling reason for people to buy it. This is about making money. > The fax effect is the same as the phone effect. Your analysis would have > had the first two phone changing the world overnight. No. What changed The first two phones didn't overtly change the world overnight, but they did change the course of the world. That deviation in course was subtle, and took years or decades to become apparent, but the change in direction was profound and irreversible, from the moment in 1876 when Mr. Bell said, "Mr. Watson-come here. I want you!" The fax had a less profound impact. The Internet had an equally profound impact, perhaps. These inventions are profound, but not obvious at first, unlike some other inventions which changed the world profoundly in immediately obvious ways, like the atomic bomb. > >> ObSpoliationClaim: "Those who buy such machines are obviously trying to > >> hide evidence. Mr. Happy Fun Court is "not amused."" > > > > That is very true. Someone trying to defeat a charge of being a boss > > in a drug gang would certainly not be helped if they found Starium > > units in his house and in houses of people who were distributing > > drugs. This would look bad for Starium, too. > > Irony is wasted on some people. I know you were being ironic, but PR is an important consideration, far more important than is generally understood on this list. You said something in irony which I think is actually a good point. We need to think of how jurors, and society in general, will react, emotionally and psychologically, to what we're doing, or we're going to get in lose. Anyway... C'punks will spend all their time arguing about obscure legal points, obscure technologies, and being right, and will never get anything done. Sometimes this list is amusing, but it gets repetitious. Maybe I should start a new list called realitypunks, which will have these rules: 1. No ad hominem attacks. 2. No anti-governemnt ranting. 3. A few select incoherent ranters would need to be kicked out for causing excessive harm to the signal-to-noise ratio. 4. Let's focus on PR, marketing and psychology instead of technology, legal debate, and confrontation. If a bunch of people are interested I'll create it. If not, that's ok too. From measl at mfn.org Tue Aug 7 06:19:46 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:19:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Public Records in USA v. Sklyarov In-Reply-To: <200108070200.WAA20840@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > Cryptome has obtained 60 pages of public records filed in > USA v. Dmitry Sklyarov: five pages of Court documents and > 55 pages of submissions in support of Dmitry's character and > achievements. They are offered in compressed TIFF format: Most of these tiff files do not download: are they still "available"? I was especially interested in the sealing order... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 7 08:32:49 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:32:49 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <20010807081912.25959.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <200108071533.f77FXE524060@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 01:19 AM, Dr. Evil wrote: >> I bought one, and I know of several others who have bought them. As to >> whether they are _currently_ selling any models, I can't say. But this >> doesn't change my "fax effect" point. > > I didn't realize they had ever sold them. I have been checking their > page fairly regularly for the past year and I never saw a link that > said "where can I buy one of these", because I would have bought some. > I have called to ask when I could buy one, and they always said, "in a > few months", and now they don't answer the phone. It looks like they > are out of business now, or will be soon, which is unfortunate. > You're lucky you got one, I guess. > Because of the fax effect, not so lucky. Few people to use it with. >> Naive. Faxes were available in the 1970s, and earlier. They did not >> "change the world overnight." For one thing, they were not accepted as >> legal docs. For another, transmission speeds were too slow. > > Yes, I am well aware that faxes existed in the 1970s. They existed in > the 1920s, if you can imagine that. You elided the part where I said "for nearly a century." The facsimile system is very old indeed. > repetitious. Maybe I should start a new list called realitypunks, > which will have these rules: > > 1. No ad hominem attacks. > > 2. No anti-governemnt ranting. > > 3. A few select incoherent ranters would need to be kicked out for > causing excessive harm to the signal-to-noise ratio. > > 4. Let's focus on PR, marketing and psychology instead of technology, > legal debate, and confrontation. > > If a bunch of people are interested I'll create it. If not, that's ok > too. Enjoy yourself. --Tim May From monty at roscom.com Tue Aug 7 05:37:05 2001 From: monty at roscom.com (Monty Solomon) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:37:05 -0400 Subject: [IRR] Using the Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir Attack to Break WEP Message-ID: Using the Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir Attack to Break WEP AT&T Labs Technical Report TD-4ZCPZZ Authors Adam Stubblefield John Ioannidis Aviel D. Rubin Abstract We implemented an attack against WEP, the link-layer security protocol for 802.11 networks. The attack was described in a recent paper by Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir. With our implementation, and permission of the network administrator, we were able to recover the secret key used in a production network, with a passive attack. The WEP standard uses RC4 IVs improperly, and the attack exploits this design failure. This paper describes the attack, how we implemented it, and some optimizations to make the attack more efficient. We conclude that 802.11 WEP is totally insecure, and we provide some recommendations. http://www.cs.rice.edu/~astubble/wep/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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 Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From loki at anonymizer.com Tue Aug 7 08:51:22 2001 From: loki at anonymizer.com (Lance M. Cottrell) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:51:22 -0700 Subject: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net closing Message-ID: The cypherpunks at cyberpass.net node of the cypherpunks list will be closing on Friday August 10. You should ensure that you are subscribed to a different node of the cypherpunks list before that time. -Lance Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell at anonymizer.com Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 www.Anonymizer.com From loki at anonymizer.com Tue Aug 7 08:51:22 2001 From: loki at anonymizer.com (Lance M. Cottrell) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:51:22 -0700 Subject: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net closing Message-ID: The cypherpunks at cyberpass.net node of the cypherpunks list will be closing on Friday August 10. You should ensure that you are subscribed to a different node of the cypherpunks list before that time. -Lance Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell at anonymizer.com Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 www.Anonymizer.com From jamesd at echeque.com Tue Aug 7 08:54:55 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:54:55 -0700 Subject: [spam score 5.00/10.0 -pobox] RE: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B6FACDF.22999.39246A@localhost> -- On 7 Aug 2001, at 0:36, Aimee Farr wrote: > You guys are acting like Uni said, "THOU SHALT NOT WRITE CODE." That is what he did say: This thread started when someone proposed publishing thought crimes into an irretrievable medium such as freenet in order to render moot any future court orders to hand over all copies of some item of forbidden knowledge. Unicorn condescendingly explained that would be illegal, but with suitable mystic legal incantation it would be legal to escrow the forbidden information with some offshore lawyer. Which is of course total bunkum -- for the court can be as unamused by one act as the other, but the act that requires more explanations and legal documents gives them more handles to undo it and more reasons to put one in prison, and more inconvenient knowledge about one's affairs and activities, generates more legal costs, and puts one in front of the unamused judge for longer, giving one more opportunities to get into deeper trouble. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 4yvbwk+eYBStv1fohR52VeVtDMsVDz8BuOccrL60 4JnCvupJX0Zpf+njUZbnjhE65hs9Lj9mDDDSGk4UN From ericm at lne.com Tue Aug 7 08:57:42 2001 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:57:42 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <20010807115157.A25451@positron.mit.edu>; from rsw@mit.edu on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:51:57AM -0400 References: <200108070451.f774p8521200@slack.lne.com> <20010807115157.A25451@positron.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20010807085742.A24211@slack.lne.com> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:51:57AM -0400, Riad S. Wahby wrote: > Ray Dillinger wrote: > > Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not > > used except to make ads more annoying. > > Certain browsers (*ahem* Konqueror) allow you to just disable the > window.open() method. That way, if a site requires JavaScript (some > do---even some useful ones) you can still avoid the banners. There are also a number of freeware ad filter programs, including one that I wrote (see www.lne.com/ericm). When I turn it off (it's not perfect and a few sites won't work with it on), I'm astounded by the number of ads that I don't normally see. Eric From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 7 09:15:54 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:15:54 -0700 Subject: Star Chamber America In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108071649.f77GnZ524814@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 06:19 AM, wrote: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > >> Cryptome has obtained 60 pages of public records filed in >> USA v. Dmitry Sklyarov: five pages of Court documents and >> 55 pages of submissions in support of Dmitry's character and >> achievements. They are offered in compressed TIFF format: > > Most of these tiff files do not download: are they still "available"? I > was especially interested in the sealing order... Maybe that was sealed? The warrant was sealed, the evidence was sealed...one wonders why it was even announced that Dmitry was arrested? Wouldn't it have been more consistent with the various levels of Adobe-complicit secrecy and sealings to simply nab him out of his hotel room and hold him for the star chamber proceedings next year? Oh, I know why the "take down" was so loud and public: Adobe and the FBI wanted a high-visibility case for the chilling effect. Well, Adobe got their chilling effect--on them. Welcome to Star Chamber America, where court orders are sealed, where witnesses have their identities hidden, where Special Intelligence Courts handle secret cases, and where some Cypherpunks even narc out other list members in the hopes that listening Feds will order a pre-dawn raid and trigger a firefight. --Tim May From jamesd at echeque.com Tue Aug 7 09:21:23 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:21:23 -0700 Subject: Spoliation cites In-Reply-To: <20010806120857.A18095@slack.lne.com> References: ; from ptrei@rsasecurity.com on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:51:46AM -0400 Message-ID: <3B6FB313.31544.516006@localhost> -- Trei, Peter: > > I'll concur that BU is overreaching himself. Eric Murray > I read him as suggesting that some ambitious prosecutors might > possibly try to extend spoliation to that point, not that > they're doing so now. I read him as saying the prospect of prosecutors extending spoilation to include any act that we do not carefully record for the benefit of those who wish to harm us, is so overwhelmingly likely that we should right now carefully keep all records of our sins so that we can hand them over to prosecutors in future -- that these methods, tactics, and technologies are foolish RIGHT NOW, and RIGHT NOW using such technologies and tactics displays a foolish ignorance of the law, and a pig headed refusal to take sage legal advice. Sandy compared the practice of purging old email (routine in most big pockets companies) to someone who jumps from a ten story building, and boasts he has not hit ground yet. That is obviously a reference to the situation NOW, not future repression. Similarly one of them, I think Aimee, advised TC May that he should faithfully keep records of his PAST ammo purchases, in case that ammo becomes illegal in future, or someone commits some bad act with that class of ammo. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG VQzYv2UAqEb0o/wyCLdBrr7hAREwB113VOspuhU/ 4AZ7R8tXI7ibEvCwONehy2PzP8/J1FWtAaIeJZUPR From jamesd at echeque.com Tue Aug 7 09:21:23 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:21:23 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <20010807081912.25959.qmail@sidereal.kz> References: <200108070518.f775If521393@slack.lne.com> (message from Tim May on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:18:15 -0700) Message-ID: <3B6FB313.16692.51601A@localhost> -- > > > > ObSpoliationClaim: "Those who buy such machines are > > > > obviously trying to hide evidence. Mr. Happy Fun Court is > > > > "not amused."" > > > That is very true. Someone trying to defeat a charge of > > > being a boss in a drug gang would certainly not be helped > > > if they found Starium units in his house and in houses of > > > people who were distributing drugs. This would look bad > > > for Starium, too. > > Irony is wasted on some people. On 7 Aug 2001, at 8:19, Dr. Evil wrote: > I know you were being ironic, but PR is an important > consideration, far more important than is generally understood > on this list. The argument "Using X shows you have something to hide" is unlikely to impress in a world where most respectable middle class people have committed multiple felonies theoretically worth seven years each. Similarly, there is much truth in Black Unicorn's argument that the systematic destruction of potentially inconvenient records is illegal. However since many other things that large companies with deep pockets is doing are even more illegal, nothing is going to stop them from systematically purging records. The court will no doubt be unamused by Micorosoft's new email policy, but it was even less amused by the emails that turned up last time. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG H9q6eEZeMsGPCWsKCGfr2xddMa6h0gxbjk3/Z/7P 4O6wKWO9uIpG9Af81TlzJc2iiHMjCsCtR9xpR6VF7 From jamesd at echeque.com Tue Aug 7 09:21:23 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:21:23 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <20010807073846.A18227@cluebot.com> References: ; from measl@mfn.org on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 01:04:29AM -0500 Message-ID: <3B6FB313.9758.516006@localhost> -- On 7 Aug 2001, at 7:38, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Also, users won't immediately know about the new remailers or > have any idea of their reliability. And while the Feds may be > generally sluggish, when it comes to law enforcement (that is, > remailer raids on anti-terrorism pretexts), I suspect they can > be quite efficient. Provided they do not stop off at the donut shop. Some of the recent FBI scandals were callous indifference to human life and disregard of justice, but many of them were carelessness, neglect of duty, and gross incompetence. Similarly consider the CIA, whose assessments of the Soviet Union were consistently less accurate than my own. It appears to me that the level of corruption, laziness, irresponsibility, and sheer incompetence is fairly uniform throughout all branches of the government and all its activities. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 4+XoxbFtjmbwcVuklCLnkO3luRrkl/uC/vP8+7j8 4uxBjG18NPUTfucoHpSlutEoqUk9JOSyWeDgeamUq From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 7 09:22:03 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:22:03 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <20010807085742.A24211@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 08:57 AM, Eric Murray wrote: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:51:57AM -0400, Riad S. Wahby wrote: >> Ray Dillinger wrote: >>> Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not >>> used except to make ads more annoying. >> >> Certain browsers (*ahem* Konqueror) allow you to just disable the >> window.open() method. That way, if a site requires JavaScript (some >> do---even some useful ones) you can still avoid the banners. > > There are also a number of freeware ad filter programs, including > one that I wrote (see www.lne.com/ericm). > > When I turn it off (it's not perfect and a few sites > won't work with it on), I'm astounded by the number of ads > that I don't normally see. To all who have contributed ideas about turning off Java, blah blah, l wasn't really _complaining_ about my personal situation. I was noting the bizarre world of online advertising in which the right third of a page is filled with ads, the top third is filled with ads, and now there are pop-up windows covering the main page...and which pop-up several times. I had just installed a new version of Explorer (5.1, a new build, for OS X) and hadn't turned off "animations" and "scripts." Now I have. Most of the ads have gone away, but still many are chasing the relevant text into smaller and smaller boxes. My friends and I have been joking for a while about how we'll need to buy 22-inch LCD monitors, like the Apple Cinema Display, just to be able to see content that isn't advertising. (I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?) --Tim May From steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk Tue Aug 7 02:27:42 2001 From: steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk (Steve Mynott) Date: 07 Aug 2001 09:27:42 +0000 Subject: (file sharing) morpheus rules! In-Reply-To: Adam Back's message of "Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:33:01 -0400" References: <20010803113301.A2527@economists.cryptohill.net> Message-ID: Adam Back writes: > If any were looking for a replacement for napster since > it buckled to pressure from RIAA, it's here: morpheus. Are you sure this isn't just the first flush of enthusiasm which will fade in the cold light of morning? Isn't it just yet another closed source P2P network like Direct Connection? > Gnutella wasn't but didn't scale, morpheus appears > to be scaling and if anything performance is improving > as the data density gets higher so the sharing surface > can give you the content you want from closer and closer > nodes. There may be an inflection point where it > starts to really take off as the number of users > is still improving the usability, performance and > variety of content. Why don't you think Gnutella doesn't scale? -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk corporations are not evil. that kind of anthropomorphism is inappropriate. corporations are too stupid to be evil, only people can be that. -jwz From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 7 09:39:10 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 09:39:10 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo In-Reply-To: <200108070518.f775If521393@slack.lne.com> References: <20010807045235.8488.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010807093910.008cf350@pop.sprynet.com> At 10:18 PM 8/6/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >> the fax effect. I imagine that the fax machine overcame the fax >> effect when a company with, for example, an east coast and a west >> coast office bought two of them and then could send documents coast to >> coast in seconds. They didn't care that no one else had one; it was >> boosted productivity immediately. > >You clearly don't understand the usual meaning of "fax effect." Fax >machines have existed in the form you describe for close to a century. >This was not what writers in the early 90s were referring to when they >spoke of the "fax effect." He's talking about how to *bootstrap into society* an artifact wit fax-effect problems ---ie, which must be present at both ends to work -phones, faxes, Navajo, protocols.. >The fax effect is the same as the phone effect. Your analysis would have >had the first two phone changing the world overnight. No. What changed >was when a significant fraction of one's suppliers, delivery agencies, >shipping companies, customers, etc. all could be reached via a >compatible, interoperable standard. The "phone effect." Theodore Hogg has done work on phase changes in topological (network) systems --like percolation in rocks, and other network effects. At some level of porosity, a body of rock becomes much more permeable, because the pores often interconnect. I can't help but think this relevent. In any case, its clear you need a perceived benefit, probably expressable in dollars (but maybe reputation), for early-adopters to 'seed' the population. But you can't seed if you don't have something to deploy, slow and expensive though it may be at first. From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 7 09:48:34 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:48:34 -0700 Subject: Star Chamber America In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108071649.f77Gn5524746@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 09:15 AM, Tim May wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 06:19 AM, wrote: > >> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: >> >>> Cryptome has obtained 60 pages of public records filed in >>> USA v. Dmitry Sklyarov: five pages of Court documents and >>> 55 pages of submissions in support of Dmitry's character and >>> achievements. They are offered in compressed TIFF format: >> >> Most of these tiff files do not download: are they still >> "available"? I >> was especially interested in the sealing order... > > > Maybe that was sealed? The warrant was sealed, the evidence was > sealed...one wonders why it was even announced that Dmitry was > arrested? Wouldn't it have been more consistent with the various levels > of Adobe-complicit secrecy and sealings to simply nab him out of his > hotel room and hold him for the star chamber proceedings next year? > > Oh, I know why the "take down" was so loud and public: Adobe and the > FBI wanted a high-visibility case for the chilling effect. Well, Adobe > got their chilling effect--on them. > > Welcome to Star Chamber America, where court orders are sealed, where > witnesses have their identities hidden, where Special Intelligence > Courts handle secret cases, and where some Cypherpunks even narc out > other list members in the hopes that listening Feds will order a > pre-dawn raid and trigger a firefight. > > --Tim May From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Tue Aug 7 07:09:47 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:09:47 -0400 Subject: Safeweb [was: RE: Advertisements on Web Pages] Message-ID: > From: Tim May[SMTP:tcmay at got.net] > > > Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising. > > Went to a site, www.imdb.com, to check something about a film. Up popped > a doubleclick.net ad. In front of the main page, obscuring it. I clicked > the close box. Up popped a _different_ ad. I clicked the close box. Yep, > up popped a third ad box. I closed it. I think it stopped at this point. > [...] > --Tim May > I do a lot of my random web browsing thru www.safeweb.com, which allows me to disable pop-ups. It also 1: Causes the direction and content of my browsing to be obscured from any observer between me and the Safeweb site. 2: Obscures the target site from knowing who is surfing them. 3. Manages cookies intelligently. It's not perfect - safeweb.com could build a pretty good profile of where I surf. Ideally, you'd want to chain through two or more non-colluding Safeweb type services - think of it as a remailer for HTTP. Also, In-Q-Tel (the CIA VC firm) is one of Safeweb's investors The CIA's story is that they want a way for their agents to surf without leaving footprints. Safeweb appears to have been founded a group of programmers of Chinese descent, and is designed to act as a route around the Great Firewall of China. There's even a entry proxy called 'Triangleboy' which should allow Safeweb to be used if the main site is blocked. Unlike a lot of the people on this list, these guys actually write code. Peter Trei From georgemw at speakeasy.net Tue Aug 7 11:07:14 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:07:14 -0700 Subject: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net closing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B6FCBE2.22614.9066B5@localhost> On 7 Aug 2001, at 8:51, Lance M. Cottrell wrote: > The cypherpunks at cyberpass.net node of the cypherpunks list will be > closing on Friday August 10. > > You should ensure that you are subscribed to a different node of the > cypherpunks list before that time. > > -Lance > Could some helpful soul post a current list of currently working remailers, ideally with some commentary as to one might be better than another? I used to use ssz, for some reason it stopped sending me stuff, although I still see stuff that seems to come through there. George > > Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell at anonymizer.com > Anonymizer, Inc. President > Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 > www.Anonymizer.com > > From bob at black.org Tue Aug 7 11:21:35 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 11:21:35 -0700 Subject: McAfee patent on security services subscription Message-ID: <3B7031AF.667A1EB7@black.org> http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,45897,00.html McAfee.com has won a patent for its system of delivering security-related software and services over the Internet, giving it a potential leg up in the emerging trend of subscription-based software. The patent, issued July 24 by the U.S. Patent Office, covers the technology behind McAfee's system, what co-inventor Srivats Sampath calls the company's "secret sauce," as well as its subscription-based business model, the company said Monday. McAfee applied for the patent in 1998. "The future of software is really going to be delivered as Web services and we have a component of that," said Sampath, McAfee's president and chief executive officer. "The patent is a way to protect our investment." "This doesn't close the door for competitors, it simply sets some boundaries for them," said Harry Fenik, chief executive officer of the Sageza Group, a market research firm. Now, any company or so-called application service provider looking to offer subscription- and Web-based software specifically in the security and PC-management arena "will have to tread carefully" to not infringe on McAfee's patent, or decide to pay McAfee licensing fees, Fenik said. From ericm at lne.com Tue Aug 7 11:22:36 2001 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:22:36 -0700 Subject: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net closing In-Reply-To: <3B6FCBE2.22614.9066B5@localhost>; from georgemw@speakeasy.net on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:07:14AM -0700 References: <3B6FCBE2.22614.9066B5@localhost> Message-ID: <20010807112236.A25362@slack.lne.com> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:07:14AM -0700, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > On 7 Aug 2001, at 8:51, Lance M. Cottrell wrote: > > > The cypherpunks at cyberpass.net node of the cypherpunks list will be > > closing on Friday August 10. > > > > You should ensure that you are subscribed to a different node of the > > cypherpunks list before that time. > > > > -Lance > > > > Could some helpful soul post a current list of currently working > remailers, ideally with some commentary as to one might be better > than another? I assume given the context that you meant CDR, not remailer. I wrote the stuff below to answer someone's request for a list of CDRs and their policies. I'd like to keep it up to date and post it regularly. Not all fields are filled in and some may be incorrect. Could the appropriate CDR ops send me corrections/updates? Thanks. Cypherpunks Distributed Remailers list info. Last updated: 8/7/01 This message is also available at http://www.lne.com/cpunk/cdr.html The Cypherpunks list is a mailing list for discussing cryptography and its effect on soceity. It is not a moderated list (but see exceptions below) and the list operators are not responsible for the list content. The CDR is a distributed mailing list. A subscriber can subscribe to one node of the list and therby participate on the full list. Each node exchanges messages with the other nodes, so a message posted to one node will be received by the list subscribers on the other nodes. The various CDRs follow different policies on filtering spam and to a smaller extent on modifying messages that go to/from their subscribers. Filtering is done, on nodes that do it, to reduce the huge amount of spam that the cypherpunks list is subjected to. There are three basic flavors of filtering CDRs: "raw", which send all messages to their subscribers. "cooked" CDRs try to eliminate the spam on that's on the regular list by automatically sending only messages that are from cypherpunks list subscribers (on any CDR) or people who are replying to list messages. And finally there are moderated lists, where a human moderator decides which messages from the raw list to pass on to subscribers. Message modification policy indicates what modifications, if any, beyond what is needed to operate the CDR are done (most CDRs add a tracking X-loop header on mail posted to their subscribers to prevent mail loops). Message modification usually happens on mail going in or out to each CDR's subscribers. No CDRs modify mail that they pass from one CDR to the next. Privacy policy indicates if the list will allow anyone ("open"), or only list members, or no one ("private") , to retreive the subscribers list. Note that if you post, being on a "private" list doesn't mean much, since your address is now out there. It's really only useful for keeping spammers from harvesting addresses. All commands are sent in the body of mail unless otherwise noted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Algebra: Operator: Subscription: "subscribe" to majordomo at algebra.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to majordomo at algebra.com Help: "help" to majordomo at algebra.com Posting address: cypherpunks at algebra.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? Info: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Infonex: Subscription: "subscribe" to majordomo at infonex.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to majordomo at infonex.com Help: "help" to majordomo at infonex.com Posting address: cypherpunks at infonex.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lne: Subscription: "subscribe" to majordomo at lne.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to majordomo at lne.com Help: "help" to majordomo at lne.com Posting address: cypherpunks at lne.com Filtering policy: cooked Posts from all CDR subscribers & replies to threads go to lne CDR subscribers. All posts from other CDRs are forwarded to other CDRs unmodified. Message Modification policy: 1. messages are demimed (MIME attachments removed) when posted through lne or received by lne CDR subscribers 2. leading "CDR:" in subject line removed 3. "Reply-to:" removed Privacy policy: private Info: http://www.lne.com/cpunk --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minder: Subscription: "subscribe" to majordomo at minder.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to majordomo at minder.net Help: "help" to majordomo at minder.net Posting address: cypherpunks at minder.net Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Openpgp: Subscription: "subscribe" to listproc at openpgp.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to listproc at openpgp.net Help: "help" to listproc at openpgp.net Posting address: cypherpunks at openpgp.net Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: no modification Privacy policy: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ssz: Subscription: "subscribe" to majordomo at ssz.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to majordomo at ssz.com Help: "help" to majordomo at ssz.com Posting address: cypherpunks at ssz.com Filtering policy: raw Message Modification policy: Subject line prepended with "CDR:" Reply-to cypherpunks at ssz.com added. Privacy policy: open Info: http://www.ssz.com/cdr/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunder: Subscription: "subscribe" to sunder at sunder.net Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to sunder at sunder.net Help: "help" to sunder at sunder.net Posting address: sunder at sunder.net Filtering policy: moderated Message Modification policy: ??? Privacy policy: ??? Info: ??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro-ns: Subscription: "subscribe" to majordomo at pro-ns.com Unsubscription: "unsubscribe" to majordomo at pro-ns.com Help: "help" to majordomo at pro-ns.com Posting address: cypherpunks at pro-ns.com Filtering policy: cooked Posts from all CDR subscribers & replies to threads go to local CDR subscribers. All posts from other CDRs are forwarded to other CDRs unmodified. Message Modification policy: 1. messages are demimed (MIME attachments removed) when posted through lne or received by lne CDR subscribers 2. leading "CDR:" in subject line removed 3. "Reply-to:" removed Privacy policy: ??? Info: From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 7 11:35:42 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 11:35:42 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: References: <200108070451.f774p8521200@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010807113542.008ce820@pop.sprynet.com> At 08:17 AM 8/7/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not >used except to make ads more annoying. If your browser allows it There are some sites which are unnavigable without javascript and less frequently Java. And some with no indication of this for regular HTML browsers. But it is best to turn it on only when needed. And send those webmasters a nasty letter. From amaha at vsnl.net Tue Aug 7 09:41:52 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:41:52 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108071641.f77GfpL29352@ak47.algebra.com> Do not waste time and energy to predict your future. Concentrate on inventing it. --Debi Coleman ===================================================== Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period of 60 days+.We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will make your life peaceful,successful & happy in a way you had never imagined before. If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy From rsw at MIT.EDU Tue Aug 7 08:51:57 2001 From: rsw at MIT.EDU (Riad S. Wahby) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:51:57 -0400 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: ; from bear@sonic.net on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 08:17:35AM -0700 References: <200108070451.f774p8521200@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010807115157.A25451@positron.mit.edu> Ray Dillinger wrote: > Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not > used except to make ads more annoying. Certain browsers (*ahem* Konqueror) allow you to just disable the window.open() method. That way, if a site requires JavaScript (some do---even some useful ones) you can still avoid the banners. -- Riad Wahby rsw at mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 From bear at sonic.net Tue Aug 7 12:26:49 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?) Some of us still use it, but we tend not to recommend it to anyone - it has become fairly obscure and, to be honest, lots of webpages suck pretty hard when viewed through lynx. I find it particularly handy though as a route around some firewalls. If I find myself on a machine where HTTP requests are filtered or published, I can ssh to a machine where they're not and use lynx from there. Bear From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 7 12:34:27 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:34:27 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <3B703D05.F52AB20@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <200108071934.f77JYs525950@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 12:10 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: > Tim May wrote: > >> My friends and I have been joking for a while about how we'll need to >> buy 22-inch LCD monitors, like the Apple Cinema Display, just to be >> able >> to see content that isn't advertising. > > You mean you don't have a 21" monitor already? I was wondering > at > what resolution you had your screen set to, with "one third" and "one > third", etc. You might find the whole web experience to be at bit > better > with at least 1024 resolution. I'm using 1152 on a 19" monitor, and the > pop > ups don't take up all that much screen space. I'm quite happy with my monitor. It's a 15.1-inch LCD, 1024 x 768. It tilts, raises effortless on its pedestal, swivels, and the text is of course super-crisp. I would never go back to a CRT! In my experience, it takes a 21-inch CRT to equal the subjective experience of today's 15-17-inch LCDs. (An LCD monitor is brighter and has a wider viewing angle than laptop LCDs have, due to placement and number of fluorescent light sources.) I expect to get the 17- or 18-inch LCD in my next major upgrade cycle. 1280 x 1024. (It is possible to go even higher, even on these sizes of LCDs. A friend of mine has one of the SGI LCDs. Around 16 inches, running something like 1600 x 1200. Too hard to read, even with good glasses. The gorgeous Apple Cinema Display runs at 1600 x 1024.) Interestingly, about 15-20 years ago there was much talk of the "3M" machine: a megapixel display, a megabyte of memory, and a million instructions per second. We have obviously gone up by 100x or more in memory (I have 576 MB in the machine I'm using now, and 320 MB on my laptop) and in processing power (billions of instructions per second, even billions of floating point operations). But monitor size has remained at roughly the same level for years, though prices have dropped. --Tim May From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Tue Aug 7 04:42:28 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:42:28 +0100 Subject: Voice crypto: the last crypto taboo References: <200108070518.f775If521393@slack.lne.com> <20010807081912.25959.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <3B6FD424.25AC01F6@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> "Dr. Evil" wrote: [...] > Maybe I should start a new list called realitypunks, > which will have these rules: > > 1. No ad hominem attacks. > 2. No anti-governemnt ranting. > 3. A few select incoherent ranters would need to be kicked out for > causing excessive harm to the signal-to-noise ratio. > 4. Let's focus on PR, marketing and psychology instead of technology, > legal debate, and confrontation. You only say that because the CIA sheeple-control chip in your mobile phone is filling your head with low-frequency sound waves tuned to resonate with your skull and depress the thalamic activity thresholds. Instantiate the instauration of starium, Stalin. Ken From jya at pipeline.com Tue Aug 7 13:12:22 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 13:12:22 -0700 Subject: Star Chamber America In-Reply-To: <200108071649.f77Gn5524746@slack.lne.com> References: Message-ID: <200108071711.NAA14441@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Note that it was the United States Attorney's office which first published the criminal complaint on July 17 while the case records remained sealed until August 6, 2001. The judge's Minute Order of August 6 stated: "Complaint is ordered unsealed," three weeks after the USA deployed the complaint for its exclusive spin, and perfectly timed for Mueller's hearing as FBI head -- Mueller's name is on the sealing motion. For those unable to download the Sklyarov images, here is what the USA's request to seal said: ----- The United States of America, through undersigned counsel, requests that the criminal complaint and arrest warrant to be issued on this date in the above styled matter remained [sic] sealed until further motion by the government. The government requests that the criminal complaint and arrest warrant be placed under seal to avoid compromising the investigation or placing any of the agents involved in the investigation in danger during the completion of the investigation. Dated July 10, 2001 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT S. MUELLER, III United States Attorney JOSEPH SULLIVAN Assistant United States Attorney ----- The Judge's order to seal: For the reasons set forth in the government's application for a sealing order, it is ORDERED that the criminal complaint and arrest warrant issued on this date in the above styled matter be sealed. Dated: 7/10/01 Patricia Trumbull United States Magistrate Judge ----- From mmotyka at lsil.com Tue Aug 7 13:27:03 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 13:27:03 -0700 Subject: Next... Message-ID: <3B704F17.5B5A955C@lsil.com> Quite a collection : > callous indifference to human life > disregard of justice > carelessness > neglect of duty > gross incompetence. > donut-chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone imbecile > third-rate > underfunded > knuckledraggers > commie symps > panda huggers > corruption > laziness > irresponsibility > sheer incompetence is fairly uniform > Colorful but irrelevant phraseology. The behavior of dehumanizing the enemy is unremarkable. Get on with the work. Design for the worst case. Mike From hseaver at ameritech.net Tue Aug 7 12:10:06 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:10:06 -0500 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages References: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B703D05.F52AB20@ameritech.net> Tim May wrote: > My friends and I have been joking for a while about how we'll need to > buy 22-inch LCD monitors, like the Apple Cinema Display, just to be able > to see content that isn't advertising. You mean you don't have a 21" monitor already? I was wondering at what resolution you had your screen set to, with "one third" and "one third", etc. You might find the whole web experience to be at bit better with at least 1024 resolution. I'm using 1152 on a 19" monitor, and the pop ups don't take up all that much screen space. Still pretty annoying tho, and I understand what you're saying about the problem --- it used to be just those horrid geocities and tripod or whatever sites that did it. I do periodically turn off java and scripts, but then I'll hit a site that I really want to see and won't work without them. At some point, junkbuster or equivalent will just become a must have. > > (I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?) Sure, it still works for the most part. I use it to quick check web pages from remote shell accounts. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From gbroiles at well.com Tue Aug 7 14:14:05 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:14:05 -0700 Subject: Ashcroft calls for more restrictions on use, transport of cash Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010807140659.03b51d70@pop3.norton.antivirus> According to the Wall Street Journal online - >Mr. Ashcroft said Congress should: >7 Make bulk cash smuggling a crime. Mr. Ashcroft said the only law >currently on the books to combat smuggling is a requirement that shipments >of more than $10,000 be accompanied by a report from the U.S. Customs >Service. The Supreme Court has ruled that failing to file reports isn't a >serious enough offense to warrant confiscating the cash, so at worst >couriers for organized crime serve a short jail sentences -- "a virtually >meaningless penalty for a drug-trafficking organization," Mr. Ashcroft said. >7 Make it a federal offense for people to transport more than >$10,000 in cash proceeds from a criminal offense over highways or on >airplanes. Mr. Ashcroft said a court threw out a case in which $10,000 in >cash was seized from the trunk of a car driven by men who had prior drug >convictions because it isn't a crime to transport drug money down the highway. >7 Expand money-laundering laws to include crimes other than drugs, >terrorism and bank fraud. Mr. Ashcroft said federal prosecutors often must >turn down money-laundering cases involving corrupt foreign public >officials and organized-crime groups because their crimes aren't covered >under U.S. money-laundering laws. >Mr. Ashcroft said the Justice Department also may ask Congress to outlaw >wire transfers of tainted money and the laundering of proceeds from >terrorism and to deny U.S. visas to suspected foreign money launderers and >their families. .. ugh. Guess who's likely to end up with the burden of proof following the seizure of cash pursuant to his proposals .. and guess how hard it's going to be if your evidence consists of oral testimony to the effect that the cash was saved $10 or $20 at a time over a number of years. Everybody knows that people with drug convictions don't save money, and they especially don't save it at home because they have trouble getting a bank account to save it the ordinary way. I guess the bright side of this is that the harder the feds clamp down on legitimate or almost-legitimate uses of existing infrastructure, the faster less-controllable less-trackable infrastructure will be constructed within and by the black market. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From lisat at etransmail2.com Tue Aug 7 14:37:50 2001 From: lisat at etransmail2.com (Lisa Thornton) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:37:50 -0700 Subject: New Prestige & Premium Checks! Message-ID: <200108072141.f77LfeL29273@ak47.algebra.com> You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com Good Afternoon! 1. New: highly attractive and secure Prestige & Premium check styles from G7 http://www.g7ps.com 2. Get your Executive Membership today and save on all your purchases of toner supplies, software and blank check paper! Click on the link below and then on the "Become a Member and Save" banner: http://www.g7ps.com 3. FREE Productivity Software in full retail packaging: ******************** a) eXpressForms "forms publisher" ($129.99 value) b) Fortune "relationship manager" ($149.99 value) c) DataScan "business card & contact list scanner" ($149.99 value) d) TransForm Suite "automatic form creation and text OCR" ($59.99 value) Pick up your FREE products at the web site specified below. Click on the following link for details and to order (or call the 800 number below) http://www.g7ps.com ********************* Please do not hesitate to call 800-303-2620 for any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Regards, Lisa Thornton Productivity Services Director G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. lisat at etransmail2.com 800-303-2620 To change your communication preference please click on: http://www.globalzon2k.com/scripts/mf_de.asp?e=cypherpunks at algebra.com or simply reply to this Email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. From schear at lvcm.com Tue Aug 7 14:48:47 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:48:47 -0700 Subject: The Feds Want To Write Your Software In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806154826.0404ee40@pop3.lvcm.com> At 05:19 PM 8/6/2001 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote: >To: "Matthew Gaylor" >From: "Wayne Crews" >Subject: Cato TechKnowledge: The Feds Want To Write Your Software >Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:21:11 -0400 > > The Feds Want To Write Your Software > >Issue #15 >August 6, 2001 > >by D. T. Armentano > >In Ayn Rand's famous 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, unconstrained politicians >end up destroying the U.S. economy by regulating (among other things) >invention and product innovation. In that vision, new products that would >revolutionize an industry-and put less efficient competitors out of >business-have to be controlled and even suppressed by government so that >no company has an "unfair" advantage and everyone has an equal chance to >compete. Critics savaged Rand's thesis arguing that she had portrayed >regulators as political lunatics. The critics opined smugly that this sort >of innovation regulation could never happen here. > >Well, tell that to Microsoft. For almost a decade, Microsoft has battled >federal and state antitrust authorities over its right to freely innovate >in the marketplace by integrating its Web browser, Internet Explorer, with >its proprietary Windows operating system. Microsoft claimed that consumers >wanted integrated functionality because it was easier and cheaper to use, >while the feds maintained that competitors (such as Netscape) were put at >a competitive disadvantage by integration and could be injured by it. >After a contentious trial and a recent appellate court decision, the basic >antitrust issues are still unresolved. > >The current innovation controversy is over Microsoft's soon-to-be >introduced operating system, Windows XP, which has features that will >steer consumers to Microsoft's own proprietary products and allegedly >injure rivals such as America Online and Eastman Kodak, among others. The >Senate Judiciary Committee has already scheduled hearings in September to >consider, as committee member Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently put it, >whether the design of Windows XP could cause "great harm to consumers, as >well as competing companies." > >Never mind that no one (including the government's expert witnesses at the >antitrust trial) produced a shred of evidence that any of Microsoft's >previous innovations injured consumers. And never mind that the antitrust >laws are not intended to protect competitors from consumer-friendly >innovation, and that to do so would betray any alleged consumer-protection >mission. Never even mind that no law in the U.S. mandates that a firm must >structure its innovation to make competitive life easier for its rivals. >Put aside all of that and consider the following: Do you really want the >likes of Sen. Schumer and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Herb Kohl >(D-Wis.) writing your future computer software? > >There are several reasons why the answer to that question must be an >emphatic "no." The first is that the new Microsoft XP operating system is >Microsoft's property; Microsoft invented it, owns it, and has a moral as >well as legal right to it. That right allows Microsoft to determine what >the software will do and who will use (license) it and on what terms. Any >government regulation of a company's right to use its own property in a >peaceful manner-and trade with consumers is entirely peaceful-is an >illegitimate taking and a violation of the company's property rights. > >Second, political control over product innovation is monstrously >inefficient, as Ayn Rand illustrated in her novel. Sen. Schumer is >concerned about AOL and Kodak only because those firms (and jobs and >votes) are in his political district demanding "protection" from >Microsoft's newest innovation. The implication is that any time >competitors feel threatened by a rival's innovation, the politicians will >hold hearings and threaten to regulate the offending innovator. Under >those terms, future productivity and growth in the U.S. economy will be >held hostage to pandering politicians and politically connected >corporations seeking shelter from the process of creative destruction-to >advance an absurd politically correct notion of competition. Issues When looking at antitrust it seems prudent to consider, to whatever degree possible, whether regulatory intervention achieves the intended goals or whether it merely substitutes one set of problems for another. Market dominance/penetration has been a major issue in antitrust. Reduction of consumer choice through stifling of innovation should be included with predatory pricing and other consumer impacts in consideration of antitrust. At a workshop presentation last spring I suggested a non-regulatory way to include reduction in choice effects. Under the proposed changes Congress would set market size and penetration limits for all markets (based on SIC or its newer offspring) exceeding some minimum size threshold (e.g., 0.1% GNP) and enabling competitors to sue in federal court for removal of trademarks and copyrights of the monopolist related to the industry in question. Since trademarks and copyrights are privileges and not rights they can, theoretically, be rescinded. Under this new regimen companies would be inclined to self-police rather than risk legal proceedings from their competitors. By setting legal market share limits and placing the initiative in the hands of competitors rather than the DOJ it is hoped to remove much of the political involvement in antitrust. steve From a3495 at cotse.com Tue Aug 7 11:50:09 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. Message-ID: On 7 Aug 2001, at 7:38, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Also, users won't immediately know about the new remailers or > have any idea of their reliability. And while the Feds may be > generally sluggish, when it comes to law enforcement (that is, > remailer raids on anti-terrorism pretexts), I suspect they can > be quite efficient. >>Provided they do not stop off at the donut shop. >>Some of the recent FBI scandals were callous indifference to >>human life and disregard of justice, but many of them were >>carelessness, neglect of duty, and gross incompetence. No doubt, but I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security as a donut- chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone imbecile. Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did you ever stop to think about who's really doing the hardcore research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? And did you ever think that they may have decided it's in their best interest to let otherwise informed and intelligent people like you laugh them off as third-rate and underfunded? Think about it. >Similarly consider the CIA, whose assessments of the Soviet Union >were consistently less accurate than my own. Not everyone who wrote assessments for CIA got them past the politicized review of deputy director Gates. As you may know, the whole culture in the 80s was characterized by a deep rift between two warring factions who literally referred to each other as "knuckledraggers" and "commie symps." If the symps had the upper hand instead of the knuckledraggers under Casey, there's not a doubt in my mind you would have seen an entirely different kind of intelligence product. The same old resentments are still there: just yesterday I heard Michael Pillsbury, a former defense policy planner in the Reagan administration, repeatedly refer to analysts who disagreed with him as "panda huggers" during the course of his testimony before the Senate. The hardliners he called "blue team". (Gee, I wonder which side he was on!) I guess "panda huggers" is a little better than "commie symps" but it sure says a lot about the intellectual climate. It won't come as a surprise when we start seeing the same kind of analytic mistakes again because of it... >It appears to me that the level of corruption, laziness, >irresponsibility, and sheer incompetence is fairly uniform >throughout all branches of the government and all its activities. I'm sure the senior scientists at Ft. Meade couldn't be more delighted to hear you say that. ~Faustine. From pth at ibuc.com Tue Aug 7 15:54:29 2001 From: pth at ibuc.com (Paul Harrison) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 15:54:29 -0700 Subject: Remailers next generation? Message-ID: <3B7071A5.51D20420@ibuc.com> It has been several years since any significant changes in anonymous remailer technology were proposed. Much of the latter day thinking has been directed more to Democracy Walls such as MN, freehaven, freenet as possible improvement on good ole Usenet alt.anonymous.messages. While it is still a bit premature, there are some intriguing possibilities in the evolution of Sun's new offspring, JXTA. In particular, the peergroup concept which allows for the dynamic formation of a routing graph amongst anonymous but authenticated nodes. There is a core JXTA security project which is supposedly finishing off an implementation of the basic crypto components including some version of key exchange and encrypted messaging (also toying with some reputation extensions which _might_ be useful). The basic JXTA node protocols use random id's, not IP addresses, domain names, or other universal namespaces.. Off the top of my head it might easily be possible for a remailers to participate in a JXTA peergroup, mixing messages with peer-2-peer xfers before a message was emitted through SMTP at the exit point. Intermediate nodes would not need to even have ICANN/IANA registered public SMTP addresses, simply persistent peergroup nyms and public keys. The JXTA protocols allow for non-tcp/ip transports as well, so an intermediate point might communicate using bluetooth, or infrared. Furthermore, by executing the transfers using a more general purpose protocol than email it would be possible to extend the remailer model to other communications channels and exit via IM, IRC, Usenet or cellular SMS. With a peergroup infrastructure it would even be possible to devise some group advertisement protocol where a remailer node or eavesdropper _never_ knew to which specific address a message was forwarded, only to what group of addresses. As I said, JXTA is a pretty raw beast right at the moment, but some of the groundwork is being set out which might make cooperative anonymous communication possible with an even lower public profile than SMTP and with a mixed mode of transport which could further frustrate analysis. There is even an incipient (although deeply flawed from a 'punk perspective) proposal to add a micropayment service into the mix. A peergroup based mail services does raise some interesting trust metric challenges, though. And -- until there is a broad population of JXTA users and traffic -- the cover is mighty thin compared with smtp. From Shipok at earthlink.net Tue Aug 7 12:59:17 2001 From: Shipok at earthlink.net (ShipOK) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:59:17 -0400 Subject: bulk friendly web hosting Message-ID: <05aa01c11f7b$712e9040$6401a8c0@pbc.adelphia.net> Re: Bulk Friendly Web Hosting Is Hostmatters still Bulk E Mail friendly. I tried calling the 800 # referenced in your e mail 1-877-381-1083 but it rings busy. Best, Steve -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 719 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Tue Aug 7 01:03:36 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:03:36 +0800 Subject: Address Book Message-ID: <200108071059.f77Ax7529215@rigel.cyberpass.net> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Address Book.doc.lnk Type: application/mixed Size: 205 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw Tue Aug 7 01:04:40 2001 From: chiuping at wanfang.gov.tw (CHIUPING) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:04:40 +0800 Subject: Address Book Message-ID: <200108070817.DAA30435@einstein.ssz.com> Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Address Book.doc.lnk Type: application/mixed Size: 205 bytes Desc: not available URL: From orders at cheapprints.com Tue Aug 7 16:21:28 2001 From: orders at cheapprints.com (CheapPrints.com) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:21:28 -0700 Subject: Cheapest Printing over the Net! Message-ID: <200108072321.f77NLR528149@rigel.cyberpass.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 321 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rsw at MIT.EDU Tue Aug 7 13:27:37 2001 From: rsw at MIT.EDU (Riad S. Wahby) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:27:37 -0400 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: ; from bear@sonic.net on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:26:49PM -0700 References: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010807162737.B27330@positron.mit.edu> Ray Dillinger wrote: > Some of us still use it, but we tend not to recommend it to > anyone - it has become fairly obscure and, to be honest, lots > of webpages suck pretty hard when viewed through lynx. I > find it particularly handy though as a route around some > firewalls. If I find myself on a machine where HTTP requests > are filtered or published, I can ssh to a machine where they're > not and use lynx from there. Or, slightly more complicated and much more flexible, tunnel a port on the local machine to a public proxy (or one that you're running yourself) outside the firewall, then direct your browser to use that port as its proxy. Of course, the best way of getting around the firewall problem is to tunnel a PPP session over SSH and give youself an entirely new network interface that acts like it's outside the firewall. With *IX, this is a trivial application of PPPd. Surprisingly enugh, the AOL client is the easiest and cheapest way I've found to do this in Windows. -- Riad Wahby rsw at mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 7 16:40:15 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:40:15 -0700 Subject: Remailers next generation? In-Reply-To: <3B7071A5.51D20420@ibuc.com> Message-ID: <200108072340.f77Nee527511@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 03:54 PM, Paul Harrison wrote: > It has been several years since any significant changes in > anonymous remailer technology were proposed. Much of the > latter day thinking has been directed more to Democracy > Walls such as MN, freehaven, freenet as possible improvement > on good ole Usenet alt.anonymous.messages. I disagree, slightly. The same old "improvements" are still not implemented. Notably, pay-for-use remailers. What _has_ changed is that interest in running remailers is waning. I attribute this mainly to a decline in interest in the _politics_ of remailers and Cypherpunks technologies in general. Despite the controversy about recent developments like the Adobe arrest of Dmitry (er, the FBI arrest...same difference), the nonsense about "globalization," and the usual paranoia about traffic cameras, the fact is that WE HAVE NO CLIPPER TO RALLY AROUND. The heyday of remailers, this list, and "crypto activism" was when two critical things were happening: 1. Clipper. 2. The threatened prosecution of Phil Zimmermann. Neither is happening now. Cracking down on Napster, or proposing traffic cameras at intersections, or "allowing" multinational companies to prosper, is HARDLY the stuff of activism. Also, the "Cypherpunks write code" mantra has been interpreted by some to mean that only discussion of S-boxes in DES and the strength of Rijndael are appropriate Cypherpunks topics. Thus we see a lot of "crypto only" mailing lists, siphoning off technical contributors from here on Cypherpunks. The problem is, in my strongly held view, that "code without politics" means mundanity about S-boxes and Rijndael! Without a political focus, there is no longer any sexiness to crypto. It will take a new crackdown to stimulate a new round of interest in Cypherpunks technologies. (Were I a Brit, I'd certainly consider the RIP types of crackdowns to be reason enough to code politically. Alas, we have few Brit members.) --Tim May From adam at cypherspace.org Tue Aug 7 14:14:51 2001 From: adam at cypherspace.org (Adam Back) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:14:51 -0400 Subject: (file sharing) morpheus rules! In-Reply-To: ; from Steve Mynott on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 09:27:42AM +0000 References: <20010803113301.A2527@economists.cryptohill.net> Message-ID: <20010807171451.A5516@economists.cryptohill.net> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 09:27:42AM +0000, Steve Mynott wrote: > Adam Back writes: > > > If any were looking for a replacement for napster since > > it buckled to pressure from RIAA, it's here: morpheus. > > Are you sure this isn't just the first flush of enthusiasm which will > fade in the cold light of morning? > > Isn't it just yet another closed source P2P network like Direct > Connection? It is closed source and closed protocol. The closed source issue is a minor problem, someone will reverse engineer and re-write it, or design a new incrementally better file sharing protocol. The reason for enthousiasm is the demonstration of feasibility of a number of open questions in scalability and performance which arise after observing gnutella. The fact that morpheus has reached the level of scalability it has, speed of searches, and download speed is interesting because it gives a lower bound on what's possible. That it is possible is good news for the future of file sharing. > > Gnutella wasn't but didn't scale, morpheus appears > > to be scaling and if anything performance is improving > > as the data density gets higher so the sharing surface > > can give you the content you want from closer and closer > > nodes. There may be an inflection point where it > > starts to really take off as the number of users > > is still improving the usability, performance and > > variety of content. > > Why don't you think Gnutella doesn't scale? Empirical evidence gathered by trying to use it over a number of months. It starts slower, searches are slower, and downloads fail a lot (~90%) of the time, resumes don't work as well, resumes can't switch source, it doesn't download from multiple sites simultaneously, plus morphus has a number of really good client GUI features which positively affect the richness of meta-information available for searches. > While some of the excuses given here are undoubtedly valid, the primary problem -- broadcast searches -- is not addressed except by a not widely used and manually configured fast host acting as a proxy shielding a slow host from search requests (if I interpret that right). Morpheus on the otherhand automates it's solution to the general issue of different host speeds and scalability of searches -- self organising selection of super-nodes -- and does many many other things better than gnutella, and discards it's speculated intra-version compatibility issue effect on performance by virtue of there currently being only one version (or more properly the versions all rely on the same comms layer library). Adam From bob at black.org Tue Aug 7 17:21:42 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:21:42 -0700 Subject: morpheus' growth Message-ID: <3B708615.1154AFF0@black.org> Someone here suggested Morpheus as a rapidly growing replacement for the company formerly known as Napster. It currently (7 Aug 01 8PM EDT) lists over 610,000 folks online; sharing 712 Million files; totalling 338 terabytes. Since beginning observing Morpheus a few days ago, these figures have grown visibly.. How big is Gnutella? Do its clients have the excellent download-resumption ability that Morpheus (and others built on the same engine) does? From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 7 17:26:32 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:26:32 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <3B703D05.F52AB20@ameritech.net> References: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010807172632.008e4420@pop.sprynet.com> At 02:10 PM 8/7/01 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: > At some point, junkbuster or equivalent will just become a must >have. > Of course the top two browser builders won't build it into their next releases... From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 7 15:34:21 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:34:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net closing In-Reply-To: <3B6FCBE2.22614.9066B5@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > Could some helpful soul post a current list of currently working > remailers, ideally with some commentary as to one might be better > than another? http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr It lists them as to whether they filter backbone traffic to their subscribers or not. > I used to use ssz, for some reason it stopped sending me stuff, > although I still see stuff that seems to come through there. You probably have an ISP using a Open Relay blocking service (the bastards). Nothing I can do about it except remove address after about the 500'th bounce :) -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 7 15:38:13 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:38:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: Utimacos Safeguard Easy broken by danish police in tax evation ca se (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:51:08 +0200 From: "[iso-8859-1] Bo Elkj�r" To: cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: Utimacos Safeguard Easy broken by danish police in tax evation ca se The german encryption program Safeguard Easy has been broken by the danish police. Today the police from the city Holstebro in Jutland presented evidence in court, that was provided after breaking the encryption on five out of sixteen computers that where seized april 25 this year. All 16 computers were protected with Safeguard Easy from the german encryption provider Utimaco. It is not known whether DES, 128-bit IDEA, Blowfish or Stealth was used as algorithm on the computers. All four algorithms are built in Safeguard Easy. Details are sparse. It is not known how the encryption was broken, whether it was brute forced or flaws in the program was exploited. The computers where seized from the humanitarian (leftwing) foundation Tvind (Humana) in connection with a case about tax evation. Among the evidence provided from the encrypted computers were emails sent among the leaders of the foundation, Poul Jorgensen and Mogens Amdi Petersen describing transfers of large sums of money. Apparantly, but not confirmed, british Scotland Yard has been involved in breaking the encryption. The danish police doesn't have the capacity to break encryption by themselves. Neither has the danish civilian intelligence service. Routine is that cases concerning encryption is handed over to the danish defence intelligence service DDIS. This procedure has been described earlier this year by the danish minister of justice in connection with another case. DDIS denies involvement with the Tvind case. Employees and leaders at Tvind has denied handing over their passwords to the computers. One even wrote a public letter mocking the chief of police in Holstebro, describing how he changed his password weekly, and stating that he'd probably even forgotten his password by now. At a time, the police concidered putting employees in custody until passwords were handed over. Thats all for now Bo Elkjaer, Denmark --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 7 17:41:15 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:41:15 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108071934.f77JYs525950@slack.lne.com> References: <3B703D05.F52AB20@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010807174115.008e7130@pop.sprynet.com> At 12:34 PM 8/7/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >Interestingly, about 15-20 years ago there was much talk of the "3M" >machine: a megapixel display, a megabyte of memory, and a million >instructions per second. I heard about it as the 1-M machine, with same qualifications. It had to have virtual memory to count as a real machine; I think the 386 or later had one. Myself, I shared a monochrome 68K-based Sun3, and thought myself lucky. And only vision labs had cameras attached. From measl at mfn.org Tue Aug 7 16:02:57 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:02:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The electromagnetic Bomb In-Reply-To: <000901c11f90$e2f14960$6401a8c0@DePaolo1> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Joey DePaolo wrote: > Another fact that guarantees a threat of the E-Bomb is that the bomb > is being sold on the black market to terrorists for $400. Really? Where? Do they take Mastercard, or must I pay with cash? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jjd3 at tampabay.rr.com Tue Aug 7 15:04:17 2001 From: jjd3 at tampabay.rr.com (Joey DePaolo) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:04:17 -0400 Subject: The Electromagnetic Bomb Message-ID: <000801c11f90$e2a684c0$6401a8c0@DePaolo1> E-Bombs generate electromagnatic pulse which destroys any and all electric current running in any particular area it is detonated in. E-Bombs are a national threat and are being sold on the black market for $400 to terrorists. For the place that is being hit, it wipes out all electricity and is said to destroy all of the technological advances within the past 200 years. Basically they generate a large magnetic pulse (with a large coil of wire) which has a lot of current running through it. Then the chemical inside explodes touching the coil of wire causing it to be a moving short circut. When it hits, all current running through any metal or electricity-using object is destroyed. Terrorists in the middle east along with Iraq have been said to be researching this bomb for several years and have become a large threat to the United States. I hope that answers your question -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1199 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ricardo at gatoperez.com Tue Aug 7 18:07:05 2001 From: ricardo at gatoperez.com (ricardo el gato perez) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:07:05 Subject: Ricardo "el gato Perez web site Message-ID: <200108071501.IAA09298@toad.com> !! HI !! I hope YOU like my site www.gatoperez.com Check it out and enjoy. !!! HOLA !!! Espero que les agrade mi pagina web www.gatoperez.com Mirenla y disfrutenla. Regards Saludos RICARDO P :-) From hugobroadway at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 18:30:18 2001 From: hugobroadway at yahoo.com (hugo broad) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: classified reply today Message-ID: <20010808013018.98330.qmail@web14101.mail.yahoo.com> IT IS TRUST AND CONFIDENCE THAT I MAKE THIS URGENT AND IMPORTANT BUSINESS PROPOSAL TO YOU. ACCOUNTANT WITH THE NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLUM CORPERATION (NNPC) HERE IN LAGOS. I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED BY MY COLLEAGUES TO SEEK >FOR A FOREIGN PARTNER IN THE TRANSFER OF THE SUM >US$30,000,000.00(THIRTY MILLION UNITED STATES >DOLLARS). THIS MONEY AROSE FROM A DELIBERATE >OVER-INVOICING OF A PARTICULAR CONTRACT AWARDED BY MY >CORPOATION IN 1997. > >WE HAVE BEEN SAFEGUARDING THIS MONEY SINCE THEN, >AWAITING AN APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN THE MONEY CAN BE >TRANSRED INTO A SAFE KEEPING, PENDING OUR ARRIVAL FOR >THE SHARING AND UTILZATION WITH THE OWNER OF THE >ACCOUNT. NOW, THE CIVILIAN PRESIDENT >HAS ORDERED THET ALL DEBTS OWED FOREIGN CONTRACTORS BY >THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE PAID IMMEDIATELY ON THE >STRENGTH OF THIS ORDER, WE WISH TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF >IT TO PRESENT YOUR COMPANY AS ONE OF THE BEFICIARY >BEING OWED BY THE GOVERNMENT. > >MEANWHILE. WE HAVE AGREED THAT MONEY WILL BE SHARED >THUS; 60%WILL BE FOR (I AND MY COLLEAGUES), 30%WILL BE >FOR YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY ASSISTANCE, WHILE >THE REMAINING 10% HAS BEEN MAPPED OUT FOR INCIDENTAL >EXPENSES THAT MIGHT BE INCURRED THROUGHOUT THE >TRANSACTION. NOT THAT THE NATURE OF YOUR COMPANY S >BUSINESS IS IRRELEVANT TO TIS TRANSACTION AS ALL >ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED FOR A SUCCESSFUL AND >HITCH-FREE TRANSACTION. NOT THAT THIS MONEY IS STILL >IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNT OF MY CORPERATION (NNPC) WITH >CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIAN (CBN). > >WE HAVE TAKEN MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT TERE ARE NO RISK >INVOLVED ON BOTH PARTIES. WE HAVE ESTIMATED THAT THIS >TRANSACTION WILL BE CONCLUDED WITHIN 14 WORKING ON >RCEEIPT OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE LETTER TO THIS PROPOSAL. > >PLEASE, REACH ME THROUGH MY E-MAIL ADDRESS SIGNFYING >YOUR INTERST OR NON-INTEREST IN THIS BUSINESS. THIS >INFORMATION IS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL AND URGENT FURTHER >INFORMATION WILL BE CONVEYED TO YOU AS SOON AS I >RECEIVE YOUR ACCEPTANCE LETTER. > >BEST REGARDS __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From jjd3 at tampabay.rr.com Tue Aug 7 15:32:40 2001 From: jjd3 at tampabay.rr.com (Joey DePaolo) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:32:40 -0400 Subject: The electromagnetic Bomb Message-ID: <000901c11f90$e2f14960$6401a8c0@DePaolo1> Electromagnetic bombs, or E-Bombs are a large threat to the United States as well as other countries. E-Bombs do exist and do cause catastrophic destruction. What they do is wipe out all electricity in the target area. They are just like a normal bomb, except they have a large coil of wire surrounding the explosive chemicals. Then there are generators that produce a large electromagnetic pulse. When the chemicals detonate, they explode outward touching the coil of wire which has current running through it. This causes a moving short circut. With the moving short circut and the magnetic pulse, the consequence is a lightening bult of electomagnetic pulse which sends waves of pulses that destroy all electric current running in any and all metal or electronic object. The result is a civilization which has lost all use for the technology it has had for 200 years. This has distressed the pentagon. The United States has taken many precautions to ensure the safety including equiping its bombers with the E-Bomb. Another fact that guarantees a threat of the E-Bomb is that the bomb is being sold on the black market to terrorists for $400. The E-Bomb demonstrates a new era of world terrorism and wars. And the reality is that no protection is possible for the E-Bomb at the current time. And any terrorist could attack at any time. Saddam is known to be researching this bomb and putting billions of dollars into it. I hope i answered your question -Mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1790 bytes Desc: not available URL: From otnnews at oracle.com Tue Aug 7 18:39:15 2001 From: otnnews at oracle.com (Oracle Corporation) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: IMPORTANT: Please update your Oracle account Message-ID: <200108080139.f781dEL08249@inet-mail6.oracle.com> Dear Oracle Community Member, To help us improve our service to you and to improve security on Oracle websites and services, Oracle is changing the way that our online systems are accessed. We now require a maximum of one user account per email address. Your email address has been identified as having more than one user account associated with it, so we would like you to choose which account you would prefer to use in the future. Please note: If you have different privileges on your different accounts, for example Club Oracle Gold, Oracle Learning Network, or Oracle Partner Network, these will all be consolidated into the account you choose so that you will not lose access to any of these programs. The process is quick and simple. Just follow these easy steps: 1. Click on this link to see a list of accounts associated with your email address. https://profile.oracle.com/jsp/util/duplicate_accounts.jsp?param=F27421605753BAE49C62785C5CBB6598D495E883A8D7472752FB3C7286E62883 2. Choose the account you wish to keep. 3. Click continue. Once you have chosen your account, you'll receive a confirmation email with your new account information. Remember, you can always "update your profile" at http://otn.oracle.com/admin/account/membership.html to change your password or email address. We apologize for any inconvenience this causes you. To show our appreciation, once you have completed this submission, you'll gain access to a host of Club Oracle Affiliate coupons such as: -$10 discount from Emusic.com -10% discount from Wine.com -30% discount on Oracle Publishing titles from Amazon.com -15% discount from FTD.com Thank you very much! Sincerely, Oracle Corporation To be removed from Oracle's mailing lists, send an email to: web-reg at us.oracle.com with the following in the message body: REMOVE CYPHERPUNKS at TOAD.COM STOP [502929/28] From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 7 16:45:31 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:45:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Ashcroft calls for more restrictions on use, transport of cash In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010807140659.03b51d70@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Greg Broiles wrote: > According to the Wall Street Journal online - > > >Mr. Ashcroft said Congress should: > >7 Make bulk cash smuggling a crime. Mr. Ashcroft said the only law > >currently on the books to combat smuggling is a requirement that shipments > >of more than $10,000 be accompanied by a report from the U.S. Customs > >Service. The Supreme Court has ruled that failing to file reports isn't a > >serious enough offense to warrant confiscating the cash, so at worst > >couriers for organized crime serve a short jail sentences -- "a virtually > .. ugh. Guess who's likely to end up with the burden of proof following the > seizure of cash pursuant to his proposals .. and guess how hard it's going > to be if your evidence consists of oral testimony to the effect that the > cash was saved $10 or $20 at a time over a number of years. Never mind that. They drop to $5k/mule (talk about absurd - there's this story about this Chinese emporer, some bloke who made him happy, a chess board, and a bunch of rice...). Doubles the transport cost. I predict an almost immediate increase of marijuana cost of approx. 20-25%. Stock up now! (just kidding, really) At some point they'll have to come face to face with the fact that there is no (zero, nada, nil, none, nope, not happen') ethical or moral justification for regulation of 'consensual crimes' in a democracy. That the only thing it demonstrates is that power corrupts. That to stop somebody from willingly smoking a doobie is about the silliest fucking thing any 'rational' man can come up with. When they see the light they will see that taxation will more than make up for any social 'disruption' it might cause. People are people, outside of murder, physical assault, or theft as long as both parties say "I do!" it ain't nobodies business. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 7 19:08:15 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:08:15 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010807174115.008e7130@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <200108080208.f7828a528245@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 05:41 PM, David Honig wrote: > At 12:34 PM 8/7/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >> >> Interestingly, about 15-20 years ago there was much talk of the "3M" >> machine: a megapixel display, a megabyte of memory, and a million >> instructions per second. > > I heard about it as the 1-M machine, with same qualifications. > It had to have virtual memory to count as a real machine; > I think the 386 or later had one. Myself, I shared a > monochrome 68K-based Sun3, and thought myself lucky. > And only vision labs had cameras attached. I had a Symbolics 3600 Lisp Machine on my desk--well, the monitor for it, at least. A few megs of RAM, a MIPS or so of processing power, and a 1024 x 768 (IIRC) monochrome display. And an "awesome" (by the standards of 1985) 512 x 512 x 24 bits "Color System." Did I have a camera attached? Yeah, in the lab next door. Which explains why I skipped getting another IBM PC or Compaq when I left and instead got a Mac Plus. A lot less powerful than a Symbolics, but a lot more like a Symbolics than an IBM PC or PC AT was. ( I expect 98% of the readers here have no idea what a "Symbolics" is or was.) --Tim May From petro at bounty.org Tue Aug 7 19:54:21 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:54:21 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:04 AM -0500 8/7/01, wrote: >On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > >> Were that to happen, I'd bet a bunch of new remailers would be >> in place before the heliocopters were finished refueling. > >Obviously you don't run one: the resources required are _not_ trivial, at >least from the bandwidth perspective. No, I don't. I've looked at it a couple times, and even set on up once, but never announced it or did anything with it. You imply that the bandwidth requirements are "not" trivial? What's "not" trivial? 128k? That's my home. 512k A phone call to Sprint away (which admittedly would take longer than the helo-refueling). Would a cable modem do it? How's about on an account in an employee rack at a major co-location facility with dual gig pipes? I have ready access to 2 of those, and the other 2 are only a matter of breaking loose with a little more cash (although I would hate to get cable). So why don't I run one now? Hassle. Time. I'd rather go riding or shooting than deal with it. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. From jya at pipeline.com Tue Aug 7 19:56:40 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 19:56:40 -0700 Subject: IRS Criminal Investigation Handbook Message-ID: <200108072355.TAA21358@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> The IRS Criminal Investigation Handbook describes in 95 chapters the procedures for investigation of crime, preparing for trial and a host of other activities including undercover operations and surveillance: http://cryptome.org/irs-ci/irs-ci.htm The handbook aptly describes the variety of methodologies used in the Bell and Parker cases, in particular covert methods used to induce criminal actions for entrapment, as well as massaging trial testimony of witnesses and agents. The chapter on Undercover Operations provides for covertly attending client-attorney sessions; posing as an attorney, physician, clergyman, or member of the news media; obtaining through false pretense privileged information from attorneys, physicians, clergy and news media; giving false testimony; putting innocent parties at risk of physical violence; carrying out criminal actions; and earn income to offset cost of the operations ("churning"): http://cryptome.org/irs-ci/36211a.html The chapter on Surveillance and Non-consensual Monitoring states: "It is important to distinguish between investigative techniques used in surveillance activities and certain undercover operations. The following characteristics apply to surveillance: The purpose is to observe ongoing activities and individuals. Interaction with subjects and third parties is usually not initiated. Conversations are incidental to the surveillance. Conversations are not monitored or recorded, except as set forth in above. The special agent has limited cover, used to protect the integrity of the surveillance. Local special agents are used. Special agents need not be trained in undercover techniques. Initiated surveillance activity bears little resemblance to an undercover operation. The following situations indicate the surveillance activity evolved into an undercover operation: The activity continues for an extended period, and begins to focus on certain individuals. Reliance on cover identities increase. Contacts with targets and other individuals are more in-depth. Agents become participants rather than observers of the activities of interest. The following characteristics apply to undercover operations: The purpose is to initiate or participate in activities with identified targets. Interaction with subjects and third parties is sought. Undercover agents or other authorized individuals initiate and direct conversations to further the objectives of the operation. Conversations may be monitored and recorded. The undercover agent has a documented cover. This cover is used as a basis for contacts with targets or witnesses." http://cryptome.org/irs-ci/36209a.html From petro at bounty.org Tue Aug 7 20:03:13 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:03:13 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:17 AM -0700 8/7/01, Ray Dillinger wrote: >On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >>Just a note about what's happening with Web advertising. >> >>Went to a site, www.imdb.com, to check something about a film. Up popped >>a doubleclick.net ad. In front of the main page, obscuring it. I clicked >>the close box. Up popped a _different_ ad. I clicked the close box. Yep, >>up popped a third ad box. I closed it. I think it stopped at this point. > >Simple answer: turn off javascript and java. It is generally not Even simpler, push that little window into the background. They usually spawn when the code that spawns them can't find them any more. >used except to make ads more annoying. If your browser allows it >(I gotta put in a plug for the registered version of Opera here) >turn off animated graphics. These three simple acts will kill >over 90% of web advertising. If you're actually after *content*, >you can usually turn off autoloading of images as well, and that >will kill almost 100% of web advertising. I figure looking at advertising (and the occasional random click through) is the price I pay for using certain web sites. Silly me. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. From petro at bounty.org Tue Aug 7 20:07:31 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:07:31 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> References: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: At 9:22 AM -0700 8/7/01, Tim May wrote: > >(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?) For very limited values of "used", yes. Not often, and not by many, but I'd bet it will build under OS X. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. From petro at bounty.org Tue Aug 7 20:13:02 2001 From: petro at bounty.org (Petro) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:13:02 -0700 Subject: Star Chamber America In-Reply-To: <200108071711.NAA14441@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> References: <200108071711.NAA14441@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: At 1:12 PM -0700 8/7/01, John Young wrote: <...> >For those unable to download the Sklyarov images, here is what >the USA's request to seal said: <...> >and arrest warrant be placed under seal to avoid compromising the >investigation or placing any of the agents involved in the investigation >in danger during the completion of the investigation. > >Dated July 10, 2001 Respectfully submitted, > ROBERT S. MUELLER, III > United States Attorney > > JOSEPH SULLIVAN > Assistant United States >Attorney >be sealed. > >Dated: 7/10/01 Patricia Trumbull > United States Magistrate Judge Hmmm... Agents in danger from a russian programmer who is charged with talking about illegal things and writing bad code. Yeah, He probably knows how to use an AK-47, and carries 4 with him at all times. One wonders whether Patty Trumbull really exists, or is just a squiggly line on a rubber stamp somewhere. -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. From d.dickson2 at verizon.net Tue Aug 7 17:19:02 2001 From: d.dickson2 at verizon.net (David C. Dickson) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:19:02 -0400 Subject: 21st Century Commerce International EXPO 2001 - Phoenix, AZ - Sept 10-13, 2001 Message-ID: <614220018380192410@EAGLE> TRAINING CONFERENCE: 21st Century Commerce International EXPO 2001 E-Business://Building Integrated Solutions September 10-13, 2001 Phoenix Civic Plaza Phoenix, Arizona IMPORTANT DATES TO REMEMBER!! Award Nominations Due August 8 Early Registration August 31 Hotel Reservations by August 17 IMPORTANT EVENTS TO REGISTER FOR: � Golf Tournament, Sunday, September 9 (form on website) Golf clubs available to rent, advanced reservation required � Tutorial Sessions, Monday, September 10 (register on-line) � GSA Training on LOGWORLD and MOBIS, Monday, September 10 � Executive Roundtable, Monday, September 10 (by invitation) � Conference and Exhibits- Register by August 30 and save! UPDATE: We are pleased to announce the Keynote address presenter: Mr. Joseph Cleveland, CIO and President, Enterprise Information Systems, Lockheed Martin AWARD NOMINATIONS: Due August 8th You are invited to submit nominations on-line at http://www.21cc.org/01awards.htm The annual AFEI Awards Program promises to be an exciting part of the activities at the 21st Century Commerce International EXPO 2001. Two Leadership Awards will be presented to individuals - one from private industry and one from government - who have made outstanding contributions to the advancement of the vision and goals of Enterprise Integration and Electronic Business. Check the website for criteria for these awards and then use the online form to submit nominations for outstanding individuals. Technical Excellence Awards will be made to an industry organization and to a government organization demonstrating advanced technical excellence in implementing solutions in the areas of enterprise integration and electronic business. Detailed criteria and an online form may be found on the awards website: http://www.21cc.org/01awards.htm Hotel Reservations: Reserve by August 17 and save! Hyatt Regency Phoenix Phone: 602-252-1234 Reference Code: 21st Century Commerce Intl EXPO Government rooms available under EXPO room block. REGISTRATION: Three ways to register: On-line at www.21cc.org By fax at 703-522-3192 By mail: AFEI, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201 Register prior to August 31 for Early Bird rates! AFEI Members: $750 Government Employees: $825 Non-Member: $900 Tutorials: $100 (September 10) GSA (MOBIS/LOGWORLD Training): $75 (September 10) Contact: Michelle Beckner Bourke, EXPO Conference Manager, at (703) 247-9473, mbourke at afei.org If you would like your address to be removed from this mailing list, please repl REPLY to this email and place REMOVE in the SUBJECT line. Thank you. If you would like to receive future email notices about conferences and training for government and industry such as this conference/expo, please REPLY and place SUBSCRIBE in the SUBJECT line. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 7 18:23:17 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:23:17 -0500 Subject: Pavlovich Message-ID: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/h021961.pdf Filed 8/7/01 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MATTHEW PAVLOVICH, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; DVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC., Real Party in Interest. H021961 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV786804) Petitioner Matthew Pavlovich petitions for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to quash service of process. We deny the petition. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 27, 1999, real party in interest DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. (DVD CCA) filed a complaint in the superior court against petitioner and other defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets. The complaint alleged that petitioner had repeatedly republished DVD CCAs trade secrets and copyrighted material throughout the Internet. ...Pavlovich is the president of a start-up technology company. He was, [f]or the most part of . . . four years, a computer engineering student at Purdue University, and had worked as a computer technician for Best Buy and Pingtek Corporation. The discovery materials on record indicate that Pavlovich and the other defendants developed and/or posted computer programs on the Internet, including a program called DeCSS, that misappropriate DVD CCAs trade secrets. Such computer programs have been designed... ...The question in this case is whether Californias long-arm statute reaches owners, publishers, and operators of those Web sites when, in violation of California law, they make available for copying or distribution trade secrets or copyrighted material of California companies. We hold it does. ...Here, Pavlovich, a computer engineering student, a technician in the computer and telecommunications industry, and the founder and president of a start-up technology company, knew that California is commonly known as the center of the motion picture industry, and that the computer industry holds a commanding presence in the state. In his deposition, Pavlovich spoke of Californias dominance in the motion picture industry, as follows: Q. . . . Are you aware -- do you have any understanding where the major motion pictures studios [sic] are located? A [by Pavlovich]. By major Im just going to go out on a limb here in that you mean some of the larger motion picture producers or production companies. Q. Thats correct. The sort of plaintiffs that were the plaintiffs in the matter that you were just an expert witness in. A. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, they make a lot of movies in California, Hollywood, yeah. Q. Right. So whats your understanding of the term Hollywood? A. Hollywood is the big area in California where they make a lot of movies and a lot of movie stars live and whatnot. ...So also here, the fact that Pavlovich used the new medium of the Internet to inflict harm on a California plaintiff, instead of the print media that was used in Calder, is irrelevant. It should not matter whether the delivery system used to inflict the injury is the traditional delivery system of air, land, or sea transportation, or the cutting-edge technological system of cyberspace, satellites, cable, and electro-magnetic waves. ...Pavlovich cannot claim innocent intent. As a computer engineering student, a technician in the computer and telecommunications industry, a founder and president of a technology start-up company, and a leader in the open source movement, Pavlovich knew, or should have known, that by posting the misappropriated information on the Internet, he was making the information available to a wide range of Internet users and consumers throughout the Internet world, including users and consumers in California. Accordingly, there is sufficient showing of purposeful availment within the.... [...] ~Aimee From alphabeta121 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 7 20:30:08 2001 From: alphabeta121 at hotmail.com (Brent) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:30:08 -0700 Subject: The Electromagnetic Bomb References: <000801c11f90$e2a684c0$6401a8c0@DePaolo1> Message-ID: bs alphabeta121 ----- Original Message ----- From: Joey DePaolo To: cypherpunks at toad.com Cc: Mike7596 at tampabay.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: CDR: The Electromagnetic Bomb E-Bombs generate electromagnatic pulse which destroys any and all electric current running in any particular area it is detonated in. E-Bombs are a national threat and are being sold on the black market for $400 to terrorists. For the place that is being hit, it wipes out all electricity and is said to destroy all of the technological advances within the past 200 years. Basically they generate a large magnetic pulse (with a large coil of wire) which has a lot of current running through it. Then the chemical inside explodes touching the coil of wire causing it to be a moving short circut. When it hits, all current running through any metal or electricity-using object is destroyed. Terrorists in the middle east along with Iraq have been said to be researching this bomb for several years and have become a large threat to the United States. I hope that answers your question -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2293 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 7 20:34:01 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:34:01 -0700 Subject: Remailer Phases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108080334.f783YL528940@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 08:13 PM, wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > >> 1. Average latency less than 5 min > > Bad: traffic analysis. Latency (via delay) should be random between two > set points. Depends on traffic rates. If fewer than 10 messages per hour, then 5 minutes delay ("latency") is obviously not diffusive enough. If more than 100 messages per hour, then 5 minutes gives a diffusivity or fanout of about 10, which is a useful amount. Think diffusivity, not latency. --Tim May From juicy at melontraffickers.com Tue Aug 7 20:50:46 2001 From: juicy at melontraffickers.com (A. Melon) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:50:46 -0700 Subject: Remailer Phases Message-ID: <9e09b007d3c12b4726c36f40e0ac2297@melontraffickers.com> On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > We need a good mixmaster net. > > working remailer: > 1. Average latency less than 5 min Bad. See the papers done on threats of traffic analysis/spam attacks against remailers. > 2. Operator probably trustworthy Impossible, and unnecessary. Don't assume any remops are trustworthy. > 3. Less than 1 message dropped per 100,000 handled This is the only goal that makes sense. From ashwood at msn.com Tue Aug 7 19:05:40 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:05:40 -0500 Subject: Remailer Phases References: <9e09b007d3c12b4726c36f40e0ac2297@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: <023601c11faf$460735a0$c5c1b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Melon" Subject: CDR: re: Remailer Phases > > 2. Operator probably trustworthy > > Impossible, and unnecessary. Don't assume any remops are trustworthy. Actually it is absolutely necessary. If all operators are willing to collude, then your precious anonymity is completely lost. A simple tracing methodology can establish this. The first remailer operator tracks the exact outgoing message to the next collusion, the second tracks to the third, etc until the message escapes, then the colluding operators track back through the list of remailers, linking based on the intermediate value being sent, until it reaches operator 1 who knows the sending address. This assumes a best case of the sender determining the path taken through encryption. Worst case the first operator can reveal the information to everyone. Joe From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 7 19:19:57 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:19:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: DMCA and circumvention discussion at Higher Ed. Chronicle (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:14:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "P.J. Ponder" To: cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: DMCA and circumvention discussion at Higher Ed. Chronicle The August 10, 2001, Chronicle of Higher Education has an interesting article on the circumvention issue of the DMCA: http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i48/48a04501.htm and also an online forum for discussing these issues: http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/dmca/dmca.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 7 19:20:06 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:20:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: A Market for Secrets (was Re: First Monday August 2001) (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 05:28:57 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: Digital Bearer Settlement List , dcsb at ai.mit.edu, cryptography at wasabisystems.com, mac-crypto at vmeng.com Subject: A Market for Secrets (was Re: First Monday August 2001) At 7:46 PM -0500 8/6/01, Edward J. Valauskas wrote: > A Market for Secrets > by Eytan Adar and Bernardo A. Huberman > http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_8/adar/ > Abstract: We propose an electronic market system for private data that >guarantees levels of privacy, anonymity and control to individuals while >maintaining the ability of other entities to mine their information and >automatically pay individuals for their data. We also describe a novel >procedure that allows data miners to anonymously contact the creators of >the information in case their profiles are needed for future research. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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 Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 7 19:20:29 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:20:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [IRR] Using the Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir Attack to Break WEP (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:55:20 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: Digital Bearer Settlement List , dcsb at ai.mit.edu, cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: [IRR] Using the Fluhrer, Mantin, and Shamir Attack to Break WEP --- begin forwarded text From measl at mfn.org Tue Aug 7 20:13:03 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:13:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Remailer Phases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > 1. Average latency less than 5 min Bad: traffic analysis. Latency (via delay) should be random between two set points. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Tue Aug 7 20:41:42 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:41:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: > >(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?) > > For very limited values of "used", yes. > > Not often, and not by many, but I'd bet it will build under OS X. More than you may think. I personally use it, and I know at least a dozen others that do as well. Lynx is perfect when you don't need the pretty pix (90% of the time). Opera is up and coming for those who want the pics... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Tue Aug 7 20:49:30 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:49:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Remailer Phases In-Reply-To: <200108080334.f783YL528940@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > Depends on traffic rates. If fewer than 10 messages per hour, then 5 > minutes delay ("latency") is obviously not diffusive enough. If more > than 100 messages per hour, then 5 minutes gives a diffusivity or fanout > of about 10, which is a useful amount. > > Think diffusivity, not latency. > > --Tim May Absolutely correct. I was looking microcosmically, rather than macrocosmically - doh! Just as an aside, I find a 10/hour rate to be pretty unlikely when you consider chaff (which is a great deal of the actual traffic). -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Jim.M. at rigel.cyberpass.net Tue Aug 7 22:56:26 2001 From: Jim.M. at rigel.cyberpass.net (Jim.M. at rigel.cyberpass.net) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 22:56:26 Subject: Open your own web hosting company ... FOR FREE! Message-ID: <20010807230174.SM01960@208.38.149.142> If you've been looking for a way to provide top-notch web services & solutions to your existing customers, or have been looking to start an Internet business, check out HOSTRONIX! HOSTRONIX is the first and only service of its kind - open your own web hosting company with NO out of pocket expenses, NO products to purchase, NO experience necessary, and NO limit on the number of sales you can make! Not only can you make money offering web hosting services, but you can also make money referring others! For each sale made by a person who signed up through you, you earn $5 - If your friend sells 100 hosting packages, you earn $500! Its that easy! SIGNING UP IS FAST AND FREE - For more information and to sign up, visit http://www.hostronixaffiliates.com/?refid=jhost - Start making money online TODAY! From hseaver at ameritech.net Tue Aug 7 21:00:25 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 23:00:25 -0500 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique Message-ID: <3B70B957.63D2C2B@ameritech.net> The judge in the Scarfo. case just ordered the feebs to reveal how they got the evidence, full details. http://www.go2net.com/headlines/politics/20010807/347286.html -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 7 21:04:02 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:04:02 -0500 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <3B70B957.63D2C2B@ameritech.net> Message-ID: Therefore, the Government is invited to submit to the Court, prior to the filing of the aforementioned report explaining the key logger device, any additional evidence, either by way of affidavit, declaration or otherwise, which would provide particular and specific reasons how and why disclosure of the key logger technology "would jeopardize both ongoing and future criminal and national security operations." See id. This material shall be submitted in camera and under seal. Upon review of the Government's submission, the Court will then determine whether to reconsider the procedure for disclosure as outlined in this Letter Opinion and Order. [.......] IT IS SO ORDERED: NICHOLAS H. POLITAN U.S.D.J. See http://www.epic.org/crypto/scarfo.html ~Aimee From pth at ibuc.com Wed Aug 8 00:15:02 2001 From: pth at ibuc.com (Paul Harrison) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:15:02 -0700 Subject: Remailers next generation? References: <200108072340.f77Nee527511@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B70E6F6.D52A8021@ibuc.com> Tim May wrote: >The same old "improvements" are still not >implemented. Notably, pay-for-use remailers. Yup, same old sticky wicket. And you get the service you pay for. >What _has_ changed is that interest in running remailers is waning. >I attribute this mainly to a decline in interest in the _politics_ of >remailers and Cypherpunks technologies in general. Whine level remains high. Actions in decline. E.g. "I'd rather be out shooting than remopping" >Without a political focus, there is no longer any sexiness to crypto. There are many paths to enlightenment. Not all are politically focused. >It will take a new crackdown to stimulate a new round of interest in >Cypherpunks technologies. We're being slowly frog-boiled. And the sad thing is that the persecution, er prosecution, of Bell, the Waco obscenity, the Russian crypto hacker arrest(s)...these are viewed by most of our fellow citizen units as good things which show that God is in His Heaven, there is Rule of Law and all is right with the world. "Why would anyone carry cash on a airplane?" they ask. And the public bumbles of our elite LEAs leave people much less paranoid about them. >Were I a Brit, I'd certainly consider the RIP types of crackdowns to >be reason enough to code politically. Here is where I believe that those silly anti-globalists may actually have a point. the U.S. federal statute DMCA is a WIPO-compliant act. RIP in the U.K. was at least partly inspired by years of U.S. evangalism about gak and the horror of crypto in the public's hands. The demise of "offshore banking" has been by the strong-arming of various sovereign nations by the E.U. and the U.S. What we are witnessing is a new kind of gunboat diplomacy, as nations are coming face to face with the ebbing relevance of geography. They are reaching out to find ways to protect their power. It is important that our main trading partners are increasingly implementing national legislation which reduces opportunities for jurisdictional arbitrage. And for the political cryptographer or the (cryptic political animal?) this is as significant as a tangible piece of silicon such as CLIPPER. It was a positive that Bush recently stood up to EU gun control pressure, in the name of the 2nd Ammendment. Would Ashcroft do the same if the assault were on Search & Siezure or Freedom of Speech, through some multi-national mandating of ISP compliance with Carnivore or RIP-like logging, decryption and tapping? I sincerely doubt it. How can you conduct a war on drugs and cybercrime and their fellow traveller money laundering if we don't "harmonize" the international standards for lawful breaking, entering, confiscation? When they come for the remops there will already be licenses to run SMTP servers, and like the Chicago police, "they" can just pick up those silly little mixie masters for expired tags or failure to stop (after explicit court order) death threats for happy-fun court judges, or ponzi schemes which defrauded little old ladies, or porn pictures sent to 9 year old girls, whatever. The citizen units will applaud. And crypto will be sexy again. From hseaver at ameritech.net Tue Aug 7 22:24:47 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:24:47 -0500 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique References: Message-ID: <3B70CD1C.73359D93@ameritech.net> Interesting -- where did I get the idea that warrants for "surreptitious entry" were only allowd for cases of national security. I thought Reno was trying to get Congress to pass legalizing this, but was turned down. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From pth at ibuc.com Wed Aug 8 00:31:19 2001 From: pth at ibuc.com (Paul Harrison) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:31:19 -0700 Subject: Remailer Phases References: Message-ID: <3B70EAC6.6AF1EDD9@ibuc.com> Anonymous wrote: >We need a good mixmaster net. >working remailer: > 1. Average latency less than 5 min > 2. Operator probably trustworthy > 3. Less than 1 message dropped per 100,000 handled >Phase I: 10 working remailers >Phase II: 100 working remailers >Phase III: 1000 working remailers And "we" (whoever that is) need traffic, traffic, traffic. A good mixmaster net importantly includes lots of source address and exit addresses. Each of which plausibly is generating or consuming real content. The best chaff is somebody else's real email not some PRNG-driven bot output. From bob at black.org Wed Aug 8 01:27:54 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 01:27:54 -0700 Subject: FBI Must Reveal Computer Snooping Message-ID: <3B70F80A.4EF3D607@black.org> Heh, the cut-out at the local computer store who has been working for the Feebs, adding a little extra free hardware, is going to need a quick change of address... http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010807/ts/crime_surveillance_dc_1.html FBI Must Reveal Computer Snooping Technique -Judge NEWARK, N.J. (Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the government to reveal the high-tech computer snooping technique used by the FBI (news - web sites) to gather evidence against an alleged mobster. In a case that privacy advocates say smacks of Big Brother, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Politan ruled that the government must reveal the details of the computer monitoring system it used to gather evidence against Nicodemo Scarfo Jr., who is charged with running illegal gambling and loan-sharking operations for the Gambino crime family. Scarfo is the son of imprisoned mobster Nicodemo ``Little Nicky'' Scarfo. The case is believed to be the first in the nation in which federal agents installed a secret surveillance system in a personal computer system under search warrant, and the first to be tested in U.S. courts. The FBI recorded virtually every keystroke made on Scarfo's computer at his Belleville, New Jersey, business, including passwords, using a ``key logger'' device. Whether the system is hardware or software is unknown, prompting a motion by Scarfo's attorneys to reveal its makeup so they could have it analyzed and make a case to suppress the evidence it gathered. Politan ruled that in order to decide the lawfulness of the government surveillance, he must see a full report on how the device works, imposing an Aug. 31 deadline. ``In this new age of rapidly evolving technology, the court cannot make a determination as to the lawfulness of the government's search ... without knowing specifically how the search was effectuated,'' he wrote. ``This requires an understanding of how the key logger device functions. In most, if not all search and seizure cases, the court ... understands the particular method by which the search is executed. ... Because of the advanced technology used the court does not have the benefit of such an understanding.'' The government argued that revealing the workings of the system might jeopardize national security and endanger FBI personnel and those working with them. Politan gave the government 10 days to provide additional evidence as to why revealing the technology would endanger ongoing investigations and later national security operations. From contactus at collectionsconsultant.com Wed Aug 8 01:33:48 2001 From: contactus at collectionsconsultant.com (AR Management Consultants) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:33:48 -0700 Subject: New Collection Directory Website Opens.... Message-ID: <200108080833.f788XZL01150@ak47.algebra.com> * NEW SITE ANNOUNCEMENT Our New Website will be Launched on 08/15/01!!! This is a Pre-Opening Exclusive Offer to Join our New Membership Directory! AR Management Consultants has joined forces with the largest International Collection Agency and Attorney Directory to become: CollectionDirectory.com Our new company, Collection Directory.com will be the largest Collection Agency and Attorney Directory in the country. CollectionDirectory.com operates exclusively as a Collection Agency and Attorney Directory focusing on attracting clients for its members. In response to our customer feed back, we have incorporated several new features to our site: * Beautiful, New Hi-tech Site * Heightened Web Exposure and Web Presence on all Major Search Engines * Expanded Search Capabilities-Search by Company name, Attorney Name, or any other keywords * Toolbox- A Free Collection Resource for Clients and Members * Quick, Easy Search by State and City Location * Exclusive Banner Opportunities * Web Design and Web Hosting * Great Prices * And Much, Much More!!! * * OUR PRE-OPENING SPECIAL- * JOIN OUR DIRECTORY TODAY (One Year Price): $79.00 FOR 1ST LOCATION LISTING $49.00 for 2nd listing THIS IS A PRE-INTRODUCTORY PRICE THAT WILL NOT LAST- SO ACT NOW! List on Current Site Today and Convert Automatically to New Website Directory on 8/15/01. Call Today AR Management Consultants 949 831 8755 Complete the On-line application at: http://www.collectionsconsultant.com/CollectionAgencyDirectory.htm Provide Payment Option and be sure to sign the Authorization. Fax application to (949) 360-9241 or call (949) 831-8755 for Phone orders. * Listing in our directory is fast, easy and hassle free. Just fill out the online application and fax to 949 360 9241 including your payment option. * Over 2500 visitors to our site each month and growing!!! * We will list your company within 24 hours of receipt of payment. * Due to our expanded search engine status, we are now reaching a Global Network of Businesses. * Link to your Website or let us create a web page for you! (No extra charge for link to existing website. Creating a web page, reasonably priced) * Membership is free upon the purchase of first Listing. * Referrals are 100% Free * Listings are by State, then City. Cost is Per Listing. You can be listed in one area or in every state, any combination. * Banner Advertising: Advertising your Business on our Site- now available at reasonable prices, call for details. * List Today and Start Tracking the Prospects! Call AR Management Consultants today (949) 831- 8755 27068 La Paz Road #243, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-3041 http://www.collectionsconsultant.com/CollectionAgencyDirectory.htm "This email ad is being sent in full compliance with U.S. Senate Bill 1618, Title #3, Section 301." (Which states "A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the recipient by the person who initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic mail address with the word 'remove' in the subject line.") From contactus at collectionsconsultant.com Wed Aug 8 01:33:54 2001 From: contactus at collectionsconsultant.com (AR Management Consultants) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:33:54 -0700 Subject: New Collection Directory Website Opens.... Message-ID: <200108081126.f78BQ1518368@rigel.cyberpass.net> * NEW SITE ANNOUNCEMENT Our New Website will be Launched on 08/15/01!!! This is a Pre-Opening Exclusive Offer to Join our New Membership Directory! AR Management Consultants has joined forces with the largest International Collection Agency and Attorney Directory to become: CollectionDirectory.com Our new company, Collection Directory.com will be the largest Collection Agency and Attorney Directory in the country. CollectionDirectory.com operates exclusively as a Collection Agency and Attorney Directory focusing on attracting clients for its members. In response to our customer feed back, we have incorporated several new features to our site: * Beautiful, New Hi-tech Site * Heightened Web Exposure and Web Presence on all Major Search Engines * Expanded Search Capabilities-Search by Company name, Attorney Name, or any other keywords * Toolbox- A Free Collection Resource for Clients and Members * Quick, Easy Search by State and City Location * Exclusive Banner Opportunities * Web Design and Web Hosting * Great Prices * And Much, Much More!!! * * OUR PRE-OPENING SPECIAL- * JOIN OUR DIRECTORY TODAY (One Year Price): $79.00 FOR 1ST LOCATION LISTING $49.00 for 2nd listing THIS IS A PRE-INTRODUCTORY PRICE THAT WILL NOT LAST- SO ACT NOW! List on Current Site Today and Convert Automatically to New Website Directory on 8/15/01. Call Today AR Management Consultants 949 831 8755 Complete the On-line application at: http://www.collectionsconsultant.com/CollectionAgencyDirectory.htm Provide Payment Option and be sure to sign the Authorization. Fax application to (949) 360-9241 or call (949) 831-8755 for Phone orders. * Listing in our directory is fast, easy and hassle free. Just fill out the online application and fax to 949 360 9241 including your payment option. * Over 2500 visitors to our site each month and growing!!! * We will list your company within 24 hours of receipt of payment. * Due to our expanded search engine status, we are now reaching a Global Network of Businesses. * Link to your Website or let us create a web page for you! (No extra charge for link to existing website. Creating a web page, reasonably priced) * Membership is free upon the purchase of first Listing. * Referrals are 100% Free * Listings are by State, then City. Cost is Per Listing. You can be listed in one area or in every state, any combination. * Banner Advertising: Advertising your Business on our Site- now available at reasonable prices, call for details. * List Today and Start Tracking the Prospects! Call AR Management Consultants today (949) 831- 8755 27068 La Paz Road #243, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-3041 http://www.collectionsconsultant.com/CollectionAgencyDirectory.htm "This email ad is being sent in full compliance with U.S. Senate Bill 1618, Title #3, Section 301." (Which states "A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the recipient by the person who initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic mail address with the word 'remove' in the subject line.") From bob at black.org Wed Aug 8 01:58:46 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 01:58:46 -0700 Subject: Congressvermin, spoliation, Henry Waxman's head up his ass Message-ID: <3B70FF46.3D451EB6@black.org> NBC Balks at Sharing Election Night Tapes Politics: Congressman threatens to seek subpoena for disclosure. Rumors say executive pushed for Bush call. By MEGAN GARVEY, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- A showdown between a Democratic congressman and the head of NBC over what exactly happened in the network's newsroom on election night is reviving questions about whether Congress should have any role in overseeing the news media. What began as a friendly offer by NBC President Andrew Lack at a Valentine's Day congressional hearing quickly degenerated into an exchange of angry letters between Lack and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) over access to internal videotapes of NBC's newsroom on election night. While some observers said they doubted Waxman, who has threatened to seek a subpoena if the tapes aren't turned over by Labor Day, could force NBC to turn over any tapes, they said the dispute highlighted the pitfalls for executives from 1st Amendment-protected industries who voluntarily appear in front of Congress. At issue in Lack's case is sworn testimony at the February hearing into botched election night news coverage. In his testimony, Lack offered to turn over a copy of tapes--if they existed--that showed the newsroom actions of his corporate boss, General Electric Chairman Jack Welch. http://latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-080801nbc.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes From fnvbjrzo at eudoramail.com Wed Aug 8 01:34:58 2001 From: fnvbjrzo at eudoramail.com (John) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 03:34:58 -0500 Subject: How to turn $25 into unlimited CASH income, easy & legal. (ADV) Message-ID: <200108081125.f78BPf518355@rigel.cyberpass.net> (This is a ONE TIME EMAIL, please click delete and accept my apologies if you are not interested in making a legal CASH income by investing a small amount of time and money) Dear Entrepreneur: If you've read this far, chances are you're currently working in a home business, or have in the past. Unfortunately, there's also a 90% or better chance that you aren't seeing the kind of income you had hoped for either. If you're honest with yourself, you know exactly what I'm saying. You did everything you were told to do, but it just hasn't happened for you, time and time again. Sound familiar? Spend a fraction of the time you would at most day jobs or home businesses and make some cold, hard, CASH!!!! I send out these emails, as many as I can, and people send me cash in the mail for information that I just email back to them. It is all completely legal, and I get to make that walk to the mailbox every day knowing that it is full of $5 bills for me!! What you are about to read is very exciting. Prepare to be amazed. It will explain how almost anyone can legally make a lot of money, in CASH!!! You don't need to have a lot of experience, time, or money to do this, but if you do - all the better! The most important thing you need is the desire to get ahead, a bit of spare time, and an entrepreneurial spirit. Have you been disappointed with a lot of so-called "opportunities" or all the hassles associated with selling on online auctions? This is different! I'm sure you've heard that before, but please take a few minutes to go through the plan, and make sure you read all of the information. Make this the one you act on! ================================================== DEAR FRIENDS AND FUTURE MILLIONAIRES: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: "Making over half a million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time" THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET! ================================================== BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! Before you say "Bull", please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are "absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost." DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: "Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in." Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. ================================================================ Here is another testimonial: "This program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and viola ... 3 weeks later the money started to come in! First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything." More testimonials later but first, ============ PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE ========== $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following. THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: ======== Order all 5 reports shown on the list below. =========== For each report, send $5 CASH (US CURRENCY), THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS (plus an alternate email address, at a different domain name if possible, if you have one, in case of unforeseen problems) to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. === When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5 = $25. === Within a few days you will receive, via email, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a copy on a floppy disk of these reports and keep it somewhere safe in case something happens to your computer. === IMPORTANT!!! DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in steps "1 through 6" or you will lose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So DO NOT try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1. After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2. Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3. Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4. Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5. Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6. Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! (Using the cut & paste feature makes it easy) =============================================================== *** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case you lose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. Once you see the reports, you will no doubt agree that $25 is a bargain. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: =============================================================== METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY =============================================================== Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume that you and those involved send out only 5,000 emails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.2%. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands emails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 emails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 email each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That's 100 people who responded and ordered Report # 2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 emails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 emails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 emails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) emails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5. THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1... $50 + 2... $500 + 3... $5,000 + 4... $50,000 + 5... $500,000.... Grand Total= $555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY! ================================================================= REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO WILL PARTICIPATE. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! ============================================================= METHOD # 2: BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ============================================================= Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. This is an excellent way to get started if you are low on cash! You will, however, have a little less work if you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD# 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is email them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the email they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. ===================== AVAILABLE REPORTS==================== ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper,*NEATLY* print or type the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS (plus if you have, an alternate email address, at a different domain, if possible) plus your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: (Remember to check online or at your post office for the postal rate for sending letters outside your country when applicable) ______________________________________________________________ REPORT # 1: "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net" Order Report # 1 from: John Sutton PO Box 282 Dibble, OK 73031-0282 USA ______________________________________________________________ REPORT # 2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net" Order Report # 2 from: Cheryl Cools 334 Cornelia Street, #162 Plattsburgh, NY 12901 USA ______________________________________________________________ REPORT # 3: "The Secret to Multilevel marketing on the net" Order Report # 3 from : W. Dock 4930 St. Jean Blvd. P.O. Box 46519 Pierrefonds, P.Q. H9H 5G9 CANADA (Note: From the US many people use 60 cents postage, please check if in doubt) ________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 4 : "How to become a millionaire utilizing MLM & the Net" Order Report # 4 from: P.A. Douglas 5122 Cote-des-Neiges CP 49643 Montreal, QC H3T 2A5 CANADA _______________________________________________________________ REPORT # 5 : "HOW TO SEND 1 MILLION E-MAILS FOR FREE" Order Report # 5 from: Pat Chamberland 332 Bleecker Street, # H42 New York, NY 10014 USA ____________________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: === If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. === After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. === Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF EMAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business!!! ================================================================= THE FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: 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 weeks and months than you have ever imagined. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in anyway. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to email a copy of this exciting report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ......# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails 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! =================== MORE TESTIMONIALS====================== "My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving "junk mail." I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received total $ 147,200.00 ...... all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her "hobby." Mitchell Wolf, Chicago, Illinois ================================================================ "Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least "get my money back. " I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big." Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada =============================================================== "I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was emailed again by someone else.... 11 months passed then it luckily came again... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks." Susan De Suza, New York, NY ================================================================ "It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, thanks to internet." Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ================================================================ ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! ============================================================== If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. ==========================THE END====================== This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/S771index.html This is a ONE TIME EMAIL, you need not reply, as there will be no further emails. From remailer at anon.xg.nu Wed Aug 8 02:06:33 2001 From: remailer at anon.xg.nu (Public ) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 04:06:33 -0500 Subject: Space War Message-ID: John Young wrote: > Don't overlook what is reportedly happening on the back side of the > moon. The URL for an IF-mooncam was posted here a while ago. The > stream is encrypted but with weak crypto -- the crypto-processor is > 1968-9 vintage. The cam is part of a data package placed on the dark > side in a classified operation. Signals bounced off a reflector > stationed at the very edge of the moon's profile. It can only be that black obelisk. ;-) From FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com Wed Aug 8 01:29:47 2001 From: FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com (Your Membership Newsletter) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 04:29:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your Membership Exchange, #444 Message-ID: <20010808082947.74527256FD@rovdb001.roving.com> Your Membership Exchange, Issue #444 (August 8, 2001) ______________________________________________________ Your Membership Daily Exchange >>>>>>>>>>> Issue #444 <> 08-08-01 <<<<<<<<<<<< Your place to exchange ideas, ask questions, swap links, and share your skills! ______________________________________________________ Removal/Unsubscribe instructions are included at the bottom for members who do not wish to receive additional issues of this publication. ______________________________________________________ You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com ______________________________________________________ Today's Special Announcement: "I COULD TEACH AN IDIOT TO MAKE MORE MONEY IN MLM!" says young MLM Millionaire. Discover his secrets to such a controversial claim in The Ultimate MLM Blueprint to Massive Success. This 200 page 100% generic training course was featured this month on the cover of Upline Magazine. Get an unfair advantage on your competition, generate huge quantities of prospects, find and build leaders and take your bonus check to the levels you deserve! Free ezine and training resources! CLICK HERE!--> http://www.ilovemlm.com/cgi-bin/at.cgi?a=151448 ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ >> Q & A QUESTIONS: - How do I increase my screen resolution? ANSWERS: - What does CPM mean? S. Mathis: CPM and other advertising terms >> MEMBER SHOWCASES >> MEMBER *REVIEWS* - Sites to Review: #144, #145, #146 & #147! - Site #143 Reviewed! ______________________________________________________ >>>>>> QUESTIONS & ANSWERS <<<<<< Submit your questions & answers to MyInput at AEOpublishing.com QUESTIONS: From nobody at remailer.privacy.at Tue Aug 7 19:32:02 2001 From: nobody at remailer.privacy.at (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 04:32:02 +0200 Subject: Remailer Phases Message-ID: We need a good mixmaster net. working remailer: 1. Average latency less than 5 min 2. Operator probably trustworthy 3. Less than 1 message dropped per 100,000 handled Phase I: 10 working remailers Phase II: 100 working remailers Phase III: 1000 working remailers It is permissible to redesign and reimplement to achieve these goals. Comments welcome. From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 8 07:19:55 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 07:19:55 -0700 Subject: Interesting intrepretation... Message-ID: <001501c12015$32c52ef0$d2972040@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Subcommander Bob" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:58 AM Subject: Congressvermin, spoliation, Henry Waxman's head up his ass Quoting LA Times: "...they said the dispute highlighted the pitfalls for executives from _1st Amendment-protected industries_ who voluntarily appear in front of Congress." A slightly alarming choice of words...? From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 8 05:21:29 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:21:29 -0500 Subject: Microsoft appeals case to Supreme Court - Aug. 7, 2001 Message-ID: <3B712EC9.5705EE42@ssz.com> http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/08/07/technology/microsoft/ -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 8 05:23:08 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:23:08 -0500 Subject: CNN.com - Tennessee capitol security braces for tax protests - August 7, 2001 Message-ID: <3B712F2C.C8BD446@ssz.com> http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/07/tennessee.budget.ap/index.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From subscriptrobot at yahoo.com Tue Aug 7 21:27:03 2001 From: subscriptrobot at yahoo.com (Yahoo mail robot) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:27:03 +0300 Subject: Please confirm free subscription Message-ID: <200108080719.f787JP511809@rigel.cyberpass.net> This is not a spam, someone from ip 235.117.218.145 requested a subscription to this free newsletter. You must confirm your subscription to get the daily emails. If you did not request this subscription, someone did on your behalf. YOU MUST CONFIRM YOUR FREE MEMBERSHIP, FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS: Thank you for signing up with XXXPics ! The best way to see hot silly girls and boys.... , delivered right to your e-mail box every day of the week. Prepare yourself for a wild ride! Click Here to Confirm. http://www.geocities.com/myprsite/index.html?subscribe=28981413 IMPORTANT: You must confirm your subscrition to get our FREE newsletter. Click Here to Confirm. http://www.geocities.com/myprsite/index.html?subscribe=28981413 Thanks again, and get ready ... here come your XXXPics! From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 8 05:29:02 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 07:29:02 -0500 Subject: Anthrax bombers threaten Prince William Message-ID: <3B71308E.3E07EF5C@ssz.com> http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/entertainment/afp/article.html?s=asia/headlines/010808/entertainment/afp/Anthrax_bombers_threaten_Prince_William__report.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bear at sonic.net Wed Aug 8 07:48:42 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 07:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108080208.f7828a528245@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >( I expect 98% of the readers here have no idea what a "Symbolics" is or >was.) Heh. I would cheerfully commit a felony or two to get my hands on a Symbolics Ivory chip fabbed using modern technology and running at a GHz or so. When I was a student, we had six Lisp Machines in the AI lab. Bear From best_broker2020 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 06:54:25 2001 From: best_broker2020 at yahoo.com (Roger L. Martin) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 07:54:25 -0600 Subject: ASKING PERMISSION TO INCREASE YOUR SALES! Message-ID: <24345200183813542580@yahoo.com> INCREASE YOUR SALES! Hello: I'm asking permission to increase your sales, this is - Work at Home Business Opportunity - No Cost to Start! This will help you get REAL prequalified leads - Meaning - they will want to work, They will step by step gain greater confidence in doing THIS business. They will have the money for your MAIN business. They will trust you and be looking for another business opportunity (ei. your MAIN business ). The above is how you will begin to get better sales for your current or (MAIN BUSINESS), You will help these people, learn to work, build confidence, make money and lead many of them into your main business. This will increase sales and partners for your main opportunity or business, in time they will want to look for other opportunities from you! NOW BACK TO THIS OFFER -- I am offering a full or part-time position in Work at Home Email Processing Business. I do require that you have a computer and are familiar with Internet/Email functions. You will need to copy, paste and file. NO RISK TO YOU, As to the salary, it's totally up to you, as you will be running your own business, the sky is the limit. What you will see represents a completely legal money making business that anyone can run to generate a significant income. You will receive full instructions, and I will always be available to help you and answer your questions. This is a genuine home business. This is NOT a chain letter, money game, MLM or any of the multitudes of dubious "business" offers that come through your e-mail box. This business will easily generate in a month or two, a residual income of $2,000 to $6,000 each month, with only a part-time commitment (about 10 hours per week). *Note: This is NOT Pyramid selling of any kind, Pyramid selling is illegal. A full-time commitment (about 30 hours per week), based on statistics gathered from my current clients (and my own personal experience), will translate into an income of $10,000 or more per month! To prove my sincerity and confidence in this opportunity, there is NO CHARGE to join us for the first month. You will receive all the information to get started plus the first month's information package ($99 value). If by remote chance you are not satisfied with the program after the first month and want to discontinue, you may by all means do so, and I will not contact you again. Therefore, if you have NOT MADE MONEY in the FIRST MONTH, Which is highly unlikely, YOU WON'T PAY ANYTHING, IF YOU WORK IT LIKE YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DO, THIS IS SO SIMPLE ANY ONE CAN DO IT! But on the other hand, if you are satisfied with the program and wish to continue after the first month, then you would pay $99 for the next month's information package. Since you DO NOT pay anything until after you see how effective this is, you have absolutely nothing to lose! ******************************************************* IMPORTANT If the above opportunity interests you in the least, and you would like more specific information about the business, please contact: me at smartmoney2020 at yahoo.com Type "SEND INFO" in the Subject Line and insert your full name, your correct e-mail address, Your phone # If you don't have a phone # than tell me how I can get ahold of you by chat or voice conference, by giving me your user name and system you're using. For example: I use voice chat or chat with PALTALK, ITS FREE and my user name is "Eternal_Success2020" and I use ICQ # 5738085 this records all chat messages etc. Take your pick but stay in contact with me -- this is vital -- UNDERSTANDING THAT COMMUNICATION AND FOLLOW WITH EXPLODE YOUR BUSINESS IF DONE WELL, IF NOT IT WILL KILL YOUR BUSINESS. and any specific questions you may have at this time in the body of the message or CALL (406) 248-6999 MDT - Best after 6 p.m. Roger L. Martin To be removed, just type " REMOVE " in the subject, and click REPLY If you want real income and business reply to the following address smartmoney2020 at yahoo.com With "Send info" in subject line From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 8 08:55:34 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 08:55:34 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: <3B6EC8B6.D31C7D9B@lsil.com> Message-ID: <3B70FE86.29242.464B72@localhost> -- On 6 Aug 2001, at 10:13, Ray Dillinger wrote: > Offhand, I'd estimate that if three US remops were taken down > forcefully, and the federal law looked as though any other > could be, all but two or three hardcases would cease operating > remailers in the USA. That would wipe out well over 70% of the > remailers, leaving a very small universe indeed to monitor. If the government decides to crack down on any one activity, and harm any particular small group of people, it is likely to have a large effect on that activity, and cause considerable harm to those people. If, however, the government decides to crack down on lots of activities, and harm lots of people, it is unlikely to succeed. Right now the government is cracking down on lots and lots of activities, and lashing out at lots and lots of people, with predictable results. To be effectual against remailers, the government would have to give them priority over lots of other people that the government wants to harm. There is a big big queue of people to be whacked who are not being whacked, and only finite resources to whack them. If the government moves remailers nearer to the top of its priorities, someone else gets moved back away from the top. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MATT5Iy6h/FaowiQwNJm0qWfplP7ymQoeXaSY9kS 4w7niDzXVgD680AVmm/BlEoMXN+0I7nHUwRXzKrrV From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 8 08:59:55 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 08:59:55 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <3B70CD1C.73359D93@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 10:24 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: > Interesting -- where did I get the idea that warrants for > "surreptitious entry" were only allowd for cases of national security. I > thought Reno was trying to get Congress to pass legalizing this, but was > turned down. > First off, there is nothing particularly special about bugging a computer for passwords. Keystroke capture programs and RF bugs have been out for many years. And sneaking into homes and businesses to plant audio and even video bugs has been happening for many years, sometimes with secret warrants, sometimes without. Bugging a computer is not legally any different than bugging a telephone line. (Though if the computer is used as a confessional, or for attorney-client communications...OTOH, these uses are possible with telephones and I haven't heard that phone bugging is illegal. According to my sources ("The Sopranos" 8-)), those doing the bugging are supposed to "not listen" except when putatively criminal acts are being discussed. But as long as we're back on the subject of surreptitious warrants and black bag jobs: I've wondered about two main things vis-a-vis these "black bag jobs" inside the U.S.: 1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is it possible that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every warrant discussed in open testimony? 2) What happens in these breaking-and-entering raids if the homeowner surprises the burglar and kills him? Is a homeowner supposed to somehow know that the person sneaking around his home has a secret warrant signed by a secret judge in a secret courtroom? (Sandy and Black Unicorn will doubtless consider it "bellicose" to say that if I ever find a black-clad ninja rustling around in my house, I expect to treat him as I would treat any other such varmint. A double tap in the center of mass. Probably Black thinks "Mr. Happy Fun Court will not be amused.") So much for the Fourth Amendment, which was designed to protect against precisely this kind of police and state snooping. When a scrap of paper, issued in secret, enables the king's men to wander through a house, the "secure in one's papers and possessions" right has become moot. The fact that judges now issues secret orders in secret hearings is not an excuse--I'm sure King George's men also had pieces of paper from the local rulers. On the bright side, I expect this will cause those who think they may be targets of such snooping and breaking-and-entering to beef up their security, to install video cameras (defeatable, but also countermeasures to these defeats, such as offsite storage, 802.11b transmission to hidden recorders, etc.), and to do more of their sensitive work with laptops which they carry with them at all times. (Today's 3-pound subnotebooks would be perfect, even for a style-conscious Mafia don. Or a PDA, for crypto. Lots of options. I'll leave it to Black Unicorn to explain to us that beefing up security is spoliation.) --Tim May From stephanie.key at etransmail2.com Wed Aug 8 09:42:36 2001 From: stephanie.key at etransmail2.com (Stephanie Key) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 09:42:36 -0700 Subject: Product Give Away - Take 5 ! Message-ID: <200108081920.f78JKv416889@ak47.algebra.com> If you cannot view this message, please visit http://www.globalzon2k.com/news_vercheck1.htm G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. is sending this email to its subscribed users. You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com FREE Products shipped in Full Retail Packaging Pick up to 5 of each! Fortune. (149.99 value) DataScan (149.99 value) eXpressForms 2000 (129.99 value) TransForm Personal (59.99 value) VersaClips (19.99 value) ? Fortune: Relationship manager and addressbook ? DataScan: Business card and telephone directory scanning software ? ExpressForms 2000: Forms, Invitation and Greeting Card generator to publish on the Internet ? TransForm Personal: Scan and convert your paper forms into editable electronic forms in seconds. ? VersaClips: Accentuate your checks, website and documents with handcrafted background images. Click on any of the graphics above to add your FREE products! About VersaCheck 2001 VersaCheck enables businesses and individuals to create their own custom checks. All it takes is a desktop printer, blank paper and VersaCheck software! The checks look professional and are fully bankable. VersaCheck is available at most computer retail stores and online. It works with most accounting and personal finance software such as Quicken, Money, QuickBooks, Peachtree and many more. Four popular versions to choose from: VersaCheck 2001 Personal Home & Business Professional Premium VersaCheck Comes with High Quality Blank Security Check Stock Available Colors: Tan, Burgundy, Green and Blue Sample Check Please call 800-303-2620 for questions or assistance regarding this offer. Thank you very much. Best regards, Stephanie Key Customer Relationship Executive 800-303-2620 To change your communication preferences Click Here or simply reply to this Email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. Copyright © Globalzon, Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 11472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jya at pipeline.com Wed Aug 8 09:48:11 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 09:48:11 -0700 Subject: IRS War Against US Homeland In-Reply-To: <200108072355.TAA21358@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108081347.JAA06056@barry.mail.mindspring.net> On the likelihood of undercover IRS agents being long active on cypherpunks, and/or the use of Jim Bell as a lure for entrapment: Can anyone with experience in law and/or law enforcement comment on what other law enforcement agencies are permitted to do what the IRS agents can, as noted here yesterday: >The chapter on Undercover Operations provides for covertly >attending client-attorney sessions; posing as an attorney, >physician, clergyman, or member of the news media; >obtaining through false pretense privileged information from >attorneys, physicians, clergy and news media; giving false >testimony; putting innocent parties at risk of physical >violence; carrying out criminal actions; and earn income >to offset cost of the operations ("churning"): > > http://cryptome.org/irs-ci/36211a.html Along with a host of other apparently criminal activities. Or are these wide-ranging law breaking methods unique to the IRS? If they are unique, why is that the case? Is it because the money-raising arm of government is crucial to all the rest? What is striking about these criminal activities is how similar they are to what intelligence agencies are permitted to do for national security -- but are presumably prevented from doing to US citizens. This is pursuing a thought that the IRS investigators may be the fundamental link between national security agencies and domestic agencies, as was demonstrated at the latest Bell trial where IRS involved a host of government agencies in the case. If it is IRS, not FBI, not Secret Service, not DoJ, not FEMA, not DoD, which is leading homeland defense, that would be in conformance with the essay by Deborah Natsios on the topic which grew out of observation of the peculiar features of the Bell trial. No other government agency has as much information about US citizens as the IRS, so it would be logical for its investigative arm to lead investigations and prosecutions for internal enemies. And to be sure, all other agencies and branches of government would happily look the other way while the money-raisers do what has to be done to keep all of them in business. This, despite faint recent criticism of IRS outlaw practices. (One might suspect the bumbling FBI is being used as a diversion from the rise of IRS hegemony in US law enforcement.) And, if IRS is leading homeland defense investigation, that might well portend most interesting days ahead for cypherpunks. As well as heighten interest in the undercover operatives here who presumably have been long engaged in building reputation, confidence and trust -- or fomenting their opposites -- and aiming at entrapment by advocating criminal behavior, as specified by the CI Handbook. Note that the Handbook encourages the use of private parties as witting and unwitting undercover agents. This would include the possibility that Jim Bell is such a wit or unwit, as well as others who have come to his defense, or for that matter, who have strongly attacked him. Indeed, according to the Handbook there are no innocents which may not be drawn into combating tax crimes, no crimes that cannot be committed by undercover agents, no prohibition against false testimony, no ban on stealing privileged communications, no deception or concealment forbidden that will catch alleged or prospective tax criminals. That is a fair description of war against America, which is another way of saying government terrorism against the homeland. I guess that makes sense for those who are determined to assure with Italy's Interior Minister that "a state must never lose the monopoly on the use of force" (NY Times today). Not even when that force is applied illegally -- again as often justified in times of war. From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Wed Aug 8 06:51:16 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 09:51:16 -0400 Subject: FW: Rebels in Black Robes Recoil at Surveillance of Computers Message-ID: > ---------- > From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd[SMTP:dee3 at torque.pothole.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 6:29 AM > To: interest at another.pothole.com > Subject: FWD: Rebels in Black Robes Recoil at Surveillance of > Computers > > > > August 8, 2001 > > Rebels in Black Robes Recoil at Surveillance of Computers > By NEIL A. LEWIS > > WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 -- A group of federal employees who believed that > the monitoring of their office computers was a major violation of > their privacy recently staged an insurrection, disabling the software > used to check on them and suggesting that the monitoring was illegal > and unethical. > > This was not just a random bunch of bureaucrats but a group of federal > judges who are still engaged in a dispute with the office in > Washington that administers the judicial branch and that had installed > the software to detect downloading of music, streaming video and > pornography. > > It is a conflict that reflects the anxiety of workers at all levels at > a time when technology allows any employer to examine each keystroke > made on an office computer. In this case, the concern over the loss of > privacy comes from the very individuals, federal judges, who will > shape the rules of the new information era. > > The insurrection took root this spring in the United States Court of > Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco and the largest > of the nation's 12 regional circuits, covering 9 Western states and > two territories. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the > ultimate governing body of the courts, is to meet on Sept. 11 to > resolve the matter. > > The conflict between the circuit judges and the Administrative Office > of the Courts, a small bureaucracy in Washington, deteriorated to a > point that a council of the circuit's appeals and district judges > ordered their technology staff to disconnect the monitoring program on > May 24 for a week until a temporary compromise was reached. Because > the Ninth Circuit's was also linked to the Eighth and Tenth Circuits, > the shutdown affected about a third of the country and about 10,000 > court employees, including more than 700 active and semiretired > judges. > > Leonidas Ralph Mecham, who runs the Administrative Office of the > Courts, and who ordered the monitoring of all federal court workers, > said in a March 5 memorandum that the software was to enhance security > and reduce computer use that was not related to judicial work and that > was clogging the system. A survey by his office, he wrote, "has > revealed that as much as 3 to 7 percent of the judiciary browser's > traffic consists of streaming media such as radio and video > broadcasts, which are unlikely to relate to official business." > > Officials in the judicial branch on both sides of the issue provided > several internal memorandums written as the dispute continued over the > weeks. > > After the shutdown, Mr. Mecham complained in a memorandum that > disconnecting the software was irresponsible and might have resulted > in security breaches, allowing unauthorized outsiders access to the > judiciary's internal confidential computer network. "The weeklong > shutdown put the entire judiciary's data communication network at > risk," he wrote on June 15. > > Mr. Mecham warned in that memorandum that on the days before the > software was disabled, there were hundreds of attempts at intrusion > into the judiciary's network from places like China and Iran. > > But Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit responded that the > concerns were overblown and that the circuit's technical people > carefully monitored computer activity during the week that the > software was disabled. > > In a June 29 memorandum, she said that there was no evidence that the > electronic firewall used to block hacking had been breached and > suggested that Mr. Mecham had exaggerated the potential of a security > breach because having hundreds of attempted breaches per day was > routine and routinely blocked. > > The Ninth Circuit disconnected the software, she wrote, because the > monitoring policy was not driven by concern over overloading the > system but Mr. Mecham's concern over "content detection." Many > employees had been disciplined, she noted, because the software turned > up evidence of such things as viewing pornography, although they had > not been given any clear notice of the court's computer use policy. > > Moreover, she wrote, the judiciary may have violated the law. > > "We are concerned about the propriety and even the legality of > monitoring Internet usage," she wrote. Her memorandum said that the > judiciary could be liable to lawsuits and damages because the software > might have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, > which imposes civil and criminal liability on any person who > intentionally intercepts "any wire, oral or electronic communication." > > She noted that the Ninth Circuit had ruled just this year that the law > was violated when an employer accessed an employee Web site. In fact, > the issues of what is permissible by employers have produced a > patchwork of legal rulings and the matter has never been addressed > directly by the Supreme Court. > > Judge Alex Kozinski, a member of the Ninth Circuit appeals court, > drafted and distributed an 18-page legal memorandum arguing that the > monitoring was a violation of anti- wiretap statute. > > Judge Kozinski, widely known for his libertarian views, said the court > employees who were disciplined, an estimated three dozen, could be > entitled to monetary damages if they brought a lawsuit. > > A spokesman for Mr. Mecham said that the software could not identify > specific employees but workstations. When unauthorized use was > detected, Mr. Mecham's deputy, Clarence Lee Jr., wrote to the chief > judge of the district, urging that the employee who used the > workstation be identified and disciplined. One such letter includes an > appendix listing the Web sites that employee had visited, some of them > pornographic. There is no evidence that any alleged abuse of the > system involved judges. > > Judge Kozinski said: "Aside from my view that this may be a felony, it > is something that we as federal judges have jurisdiction to > consider. We have to pass on this very kind of conduct in the private > sphere." > > Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of the George Washington University Law School, > author of a recent book on privacy, "The Unwanted Gaze" (Vintage > 2001), said, "It's fascinating that the courts have to grapple with > these issues so close to home." The law is evolving, he said, adding: > "This drama with the judges reminds us of how thin the privacy > protections are. There's a real choice right now whether e-mail and > Web browsing should be regarded like the telephone or a postcard." > > Judge Edwin L. Nelson, who is chairman of a judges' committee that > deals with computer issues, said in an interview that his group met > last week and drafted proposals to deal with monitoring. Judge Nelson > would not discuss the proposals but they are almost certain to > resemble policies used in the rest of the federal government, in which > clear notice is given to computer users that they may be monitored. > > Jim Flyzik, vice chairman of an interagency group that considers > computer privacy issues in the federal government, said that each > department had its own policy but that clear and unambiguous > notification of monitoring was usually an element. > > In the private sector, a survey by the American Management Association > this year found that 63 percent of companies monitored employees' > computer use. From georgemw at speakeasy.net Wed Aug 8 10:13:56 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:13:56 -0700 Subject: Pavlovich In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B7110E4.31518.80632E@localhost> Could someone more versed in the law attempt to elaborate on the logic the judge is applying here? I mean, Pavlovich is a Purdue student with a Russian sounding name, so presumably he lives in Indiana. As I read it, the judge seems to feel that Californai law should apply to Pavlovich becasue Pavlovich KNOWS that lost of movies are made in Hollywood, and even that Hollywood happens to be in California. Now, I could understand the reasoning sort of if the judge had merely stated that any case where the plaintiff is californian should be tried in california, home team advantage and all that, but why should it matter that the defendent KNOWS that Hollywood is in California? I probably shouldn't admit this, but I happen to know that a lot of peanuts are grown in Senegal. Should I be worried? George From bear at sonic.net Wed Aug 8 10:39:13 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >To all who have contributed ideas about turning off Java, blah blah, l >wasn't really _complaining_ about my personal situation. I was noting >the bizarre world of online advertising in which the right third of a >page is filled with ads, the top third is filled with ads, and now there >are pop-up windows covering the main page...and which pop-up several >times. Newspapers are usually over 60% advertising. But at least in newspapers, the ads don't wiggle. Bear From wolf at priori.net Wed Aug 8 03:40:53 2001 From: wolf at priori.net (Meyer Wolfsheim) Date: 8 Aug 2001 10:40:53 -0000 Subject: Remailer Phases Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > > > 2. Operator probably trustworthy > > > > Impossible, and unnecessary. Don't assume any remops are trustworthy. > > Actually it is absolutely necessary. If all operators are willing to > collude, then your precious anonymity is completely lost. A simple > tracing methodology can establish this. The first remailer operator > tracks the > exact outgoing message to the next collusion, the second tracks to the > third, etc until the message escapes, then the colluding operators track > back through > the list of remailers, linking based on the intermediate value being > sent, > until it reaches operator 1 who knows the sending address. This assumes > a best case of the sender determining the path taken through encryption. > Worst case the first operator can reveal the information to everyone. > Joe Run your own remailer. Chain through it at some point. As long as you trust yourself, there is no threat. Who of the current remops do you trust? Why? -MW- From alqaeda at hq.org Wed Aug 8 10:43:16 2001 From: alqaeda at hq.org (Alfred Qaeda) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 10:43:16 -0700 Subject: Calif law applies everywhere; DeCSS Message-ID: <3B717A34.C04F349B@hq.org> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/cn/20010807/tc/out-of-state_resident_can_be_sued_in_dvd_case_1.html Out-of-state resident can be sued in DVD case By Jim Hu CNET News.com An out-of-state resident who allegedly posted computer code that circumvents DVD encryption measures can be sued under California law, a California appeals court ruled Tuesday. The Sixth Appellate Court of California decided that Matthew Pavlovich, who is not a California resident, could be tried for violating the state's trade secrets law. "The reach of the Internet is also the reach of the extension of the poster's presence," the ruling stated. The decision follows what appeared to have been a small victory for Pavlovich in December 2000, when the California Supreme Court ordered a lower court to show he should remain in the case even though he is not a California resident. Because of the ruling, others involved in the case living outside California will remain under the state's jurisdiction. The ruling could show that the Internet is not immune to California's long-arm statutes even when the publisher of the site is located outside the state. The DVD Copy Control Association originally filed a complaint in December 1999 against Pavlovich for allegedly posting the DeCSS (news - web sites) code on his Web site. The suit was meant to prevent the dissemination of DeCSS, a code whose original intent was to let programmers create a DVD player for Linux (news - web sites) machines. The movie industry and DVD CCA argued that DeCSS could be used to illegally copy DVDs and have taken legal action against people posting the code on their sites. In a federal case filed in New York, for example, the Motion Picture Association of America is suing 2600, a site that published and linked to the DeCSS code. Allon Levy, the attorney representing Pavlovich, could not be reached for comment. "The very significance in it has held that persons like Pavlovich in various parts of the country are subject to jurisdiction in a California court if they did what Pavlovich did," said Robert Sugarman, an attorney at Weil, Gotshal & Manges and a legal counsel for the DVD CCA. From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 8 11:06:05 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:06:05 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108081806.f78I6L500976@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 10:39 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> To all who have contributed ideas about turning off Java, blah blah, l >> wasn't really _complaining_ about my personal situation. I was noting >> the bizarre world of online advertising in which the right third of a >> page is filled with ads, the top third is filled with ads, and now >> there >> are pop-up windows covering the main page...and which pop-up several >> times. > > Newspapers are usually over 60% advertising. But at least in > newspapers, the ads don't wiggle. And newspaper pages are vastly bigger than a typical screen. The eye can move very quickly to the sections of interest. Magazine pages are more like normal screen sizes. I don't begrudge the ad makers their "right" to buy space at some site for their intrusive ads. I _do_ think it's getting to the point of absurdity. This will cause more and more people to look into Ad busters. What will be interesting is if the advertising industry seeks to block the distribution of those ad busters, perhaps based on some kind of DMCA claim. (Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or copright protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in the DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.) From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 8 11:39:20 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:39:20 -0700 Subject: Microsoft Risking "Spoliation" Charges Message-ID: <200108081839.f78Idb501213@slack.lne.com> Looks like Microsoft is racing to get copies of XP out where they can't be retrieved, where the distribution is a done deal, a fact on the ground. No word yet on whether Black Unicorn's "Mr. Happy Fun Court" is "not amused." --Tim May --begin excerpt--- Windows XP could see September ship date By Joe Wilcox Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 7, 2001, 3:20 p.m. PT Starting next month, some new PCs could include an unexpected accessory: Windows XP. Microsoft has given PC makers the go-ahead to ship Windows XP as much as one full month before the operating system's official Oct. 25 launch date, sources close to four major PC makers told CNET News.com. ... For Microsoft, the early release of Windows XP has an additional benefit. The company is advancing its release schedule to try to beat any possible injunction that would delay the new operating system's debut, analysts said. ..... "Because a new remedy would be forward-looking, that could include (Windows) XP," said Andy Gavil, an antitrust professor with Howard University School of Law. "There's no reason to think the government is not considering an injunction against XP." .... Specter of injunction Getting Windows XP on new systems ahead of the scheduled Oct. 25 launch could help Microsoft fend off possible injunctions against Windows XP,... ... Publicly, Microsoft Group Vice President Jim Allchin said the company had no contingency plan should an injunction be issued against Windows XP. But sources close to Microsoft said the company is concerned about the possibility. ---end excerpt--- From bear at sonic.net Wed Aug 8 11:44:25 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108081806.f78I6L500976@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >(Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or copright >protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA >violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in the >DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be >fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build >devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.) They're sticking *trailers* on movies that people *pay for??* Geez.. talk about destroying the value of the merchandise they're trying to sell. Bear From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 8 12:02:13 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:02:13 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108081902.f78J2W501412@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 11:44 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > > >> (Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or >> copright >> protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA >> violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in >> the >> DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be >> fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build >> devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.) > > They're sticking *trailers* on movies that people *pay for??* > > Geez.. talk about destroying the value of the merchandise they're > trying to sell. > Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers and ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the DVD spec which allows this. So an ad-buster which "circumvented" this would violate the DMCA, presumably. --Tim May From honig at sprynet.com Wed Aug 8 12:29:35 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 12:29:35 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010808122935.008e2930@pop.sprynet.com> At 07:54 PM 8/7/01 -0700, Petro wrote: >At 1:04 AM -0500 8/7/01, wrote: >>On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Petro wrote: >> >>> Were that to happen, I'd bet a bunch of new remailers would be >>> in place before the heliocopters were finished refueling. >> >>Obviously you don't run one: the resources required are _not_ trivial, at >>least from the bandwidth perspective. > > No, I don't. I've looked at it a couple times, and even set on up once, but never announced it or did anything with it. Its not the bandwidth, its the learning time, for the human who has to choose the code to install, install it, configure it, and test it. Attention is the limited resource. From honig at sprynet.com Wed Aug 8 12:36:13 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 12:36:13 -0700 Subject: The Electromagnetic Bomb In-Reply-To: References: <000801c11f90$e2a684c0$6401a8c0@DePaolo1> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010808123613.008e3670@pop.sprynet.com> At 08:30 PM 8/7/01 -0700, Brent wrote: > bs > > E-Bombs generate electromagnatic pulse which destroys any and all electric >current running in any particular area it is detonated in. E-Bombs are a >national threat and are being sold on the black market for $400 to terrorists. Yeah the same terrorists who buy thousand-dollar frequency counters to use as bug sweepers.. >they generate a large magnetic pulse (with a large coil of wire) which has a >lot of current running through it. Then the chemical inside explodes touching >the coil of wire causing it to be a moving short circut. When it hits, all >current running through any metal or electricity-using object is destroyed. This is a Joe Sixpack-level misconstrual of an explosive-driven impulse generator that uses the explosion to collapse an inductor's magnetic field. Standard stuff, described in lots of places on the web. Not very discrete, being explosive driven. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Aug 8 03:38:22 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:38:22 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote: > Some of us still use it, but we tend not to recommend it to > anyone - it has become fairly obscure and, to be honest, lots > of webpages suck pretty hard when viewed through lynx. I Have you tried using Links? > find it particularly handy though as a route around some > firewalls. If I find myself on a machine where HTTP requests > are filtered or published, I can ssh to a machine where they're > not and use lynx from there. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From georgemw at speakeasy.net Wed Aug 8 12:39:17 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:39:17 -0700 Subject: No fault antitrust In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806154826.0404ee40@pop3.lvcm.com> References: Message-ID: <3B7132F5.26079.1057795@localhost> On 7 Aug 2001, at 14:48, Steve Schear wrote: > At a workshop presentation last spring I suggested a non-regulatory way to > include reduction in choice effects. Under the proposed changes Congress > would set market size and penetration limits for all markets (based on SIC > or its newer offspring) exceeding some minimum size threshold (e.g., 0.1% > GNP) and enabling competitors to sue in federal court for removal of > trademarks and copyrights of the monopolist related to the industry in > question. Since trademarks and copyrights are privileges and not rights > they can, theoretically, be rescinded. > So under this "no fault antitrust" proposal, we strip away the illusion that the DOJ is punishing predatory behavior and accept that, in fact, what is being punished is market share dominance? Interesting notion, here's why I don't think this will work: the single difficult point in most of these antitrust cases is determining what constitutes the market in question in the first place. For example, in the Microsoft case, Microsoft was held to have a monoploly on operating systems for computers which use intel processors. Obviously, there is no such market in the first place. There's a server market (in which sun competes), there's a personal computer market (in which Apple competes), but there's no fucking such thing as the Intel (or compatible) powered computer market, it's as absurd a concept as the spaghetti sauce with Paul Newman's picture on the jar market. > Under this new regimen companies would be inclined to self-police rather > than risk legal proceedings from their competitors. By setting legal > market share limits and placing the initiative in the hands of competitors > rather than the DOJ it is hoped to remove much of the political involvement > in antitrust. > > steve > > The other possible advantage of allegedly punishing companies for actually engaging in unethical actions rather than merely for getting too large a market share is the (admittedly unlikely) psossibility that in some cases the claims might be true. For example, consider a hypothetical case in which, due to economies of scale or whatever, that there really only ought to be one supplier of a given product. Would forcing that company to raise its prices until its market share falls to approved levels really be to anyone's benefit? George From bob at black.org Wed Aug 8 12:41:05 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 12:41:05 -0700 Subject: lynx for mirroring? (Re: Advertisements on Web Pages) Message-ID: <3B7195D0.26637073@black.org> At 10:41 PM 8/7/01 -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: > >> >(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?) >> >> For very limited values of "used", yes. Declan once gave a lynx command line that would download a website (recursing) less the images, of course. I found it didn't preserve file names or directory hierarchy, so it was less useful for mirroring sites I anticipated being oppressed. Can anyone recommend a better tool? For wintel? From grocha at neutraldomain.org Wed Aug 8 12:53:38 2001 From: grocha at neutraldomain.org (Gabriel Rocha) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:53:38 -0700 Subject: lynx for mirroring? (Re: Advertisements on Web Pages) In-Reply-To: <3B7195D0.26637073@black.org>; from bob@black.org on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:41:05PM -0700 References: <3B7195D0.26637073@black.org> Message-ID: <20010808125338.C49264@neutraldomain.org> ,----[ On Wed, Aug 08, at 12:41PM, Subcommander Bob wrote: ]-------------- | Can anyone recommend a better tool? | For wintel? `----[ End Quote ]--------------------------- It isnt for wintel proper, but you can run wget under cygwin (cygwin.com) and use wget -m which will give you a full mirror and if you run it in any kind of timely interval, will even update the differences for you to keep your mirror up to date. cygwin is very nifty too, a (semi)full unix enviroment under windows. command line anyway. hope it helps. --gabe -- "It's not brave, if you're not scared." From Owen_Burger at msn.com Wed Aug 8 10:56:12 2001 From: Owen_Burger at msn.com (orbit) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 12:56:12 -0500 Subject: ad: An offer you can't refuse....... Message-ID: <3082767-22001838175612800@msn.com> Would a free vacation be enough to convince you to save some money every month? What if I threw in free airfare too? All you need to do is go to: http://cognigen.net/corporate/?owen Check the Best Rate Calculator, and then choose the lowest rate 1+ (no lengthy access number, no busy signals) long distance service provider you can get! They have lots of other great telecom 'stuff' too. That's it. Now go get your free vacation and free airfare: http://iwav.vacation-4-free.com/orbit http://iwav.trip4free.com/orbit Still not enough incentive? Need another reason to lower your phone bill? How about if I also throw in a free 500-channel satellite dish with free installation? http://iwav.dishnetcentral.com/orbit Isn't this an offer you can't refuse?? (Even if you DON'T want to lower your phone bill, you can still use the free stuff -- there is no obligation.) Owen Burger the orbit team P.S. Cognigen is also a great business opportunity -- no cost EVER to be an agent. Massive passive residual income. You could send this same ad. Note: I respect your privacy, and this is a one-time mailing from me. If you would rather be removed from the "travel" list I purchased, just send a blank email with "remove" and your email address in the subject line. I will forward it to the list source. From honig at sprynet.com Wed Aug 8 13:01:05 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 13:01:05 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: References: <200108080208.f7828a528245@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010808130105.008e4100@pop.sprynet.com> At 07:48 AM 8/8/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >>( I expect 98% of the readers here have no idea what a "Symbolics" is or >>was.) > >Heh. I would cheerfully commit a felony or two to get my hands >on a Symbolics Ivory chip fabbed using modern technology and running >at a GHz or so. When I was a student, we had six Lisp Machines in the >AI lab. Yeah, kids these days think a tagged architecture is done with spraypaint.. From mech at eff.org Wed Aug 8 13:07:29 2001 From: mech at eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:07:29 -0700 Subject: More censorware stupidity, from the anti-spam camp Message-ID: Jonathan Wallace's BESS/N2H2 post reminds, me... A friend of mine runs a "garage ISP", on which I run some mailing lists. I got deluged with bounces the other day, all from a new subscriber. The mail from the (hi-traffick) list they'd joined was all being returned, with a notice from that person's ISP saying that the mail was blocked because the site it was sent from is blacklisted on the ORBS anti-spam blacklist for running an open mail relay. Funny thing is, my friend's little ISP has not run an open mail relay is well over a year. Not only that, but ORBS is dead. The "organization" folded, and no updates to their blacklists have been published in months. The upshot of this is pretty scary, given that an estimated 40% of US ISPs and 20% of ALL ISPs are using ORBS, MAPS and other. Your ability to communicate via SMTP with your friends, family and associates around the world is largely dependent on sysadmins remembering to dilligently update their blacklist subscriptions and thinking to ensure that their chosen blacklist is actually still viable (as much as any of them can be called that to begin with). Not only that, but when a spamcensorware maker kicks the bucket, if your site is blacklisted *it can never be unblacklisted ever again, from that particular list, for all eternity* and some site somewhere WILL be using that blacklist, for years. Meanwhile innocent list admins get tarred with bounce floods, people cannot reach who they are trying to mail, and users whose ISPs don't bother to inform them much less adhere to an opt-in (or even opt-out) spambouncing policy will not receive mail intended for them and often never even know about it. The only thing worse than a blacklist, is a blacklist that is "in-play" in the real world, but not being corrected. If/when MAPS dies, this problem is going to *explode*. Hardly anyone used ORBS and this has already caused a lot of people severe headaches that still continue. But, maybe the problem will be so big if/when that happens that blacklists will largely be simply abandoned. NB: I'm not against individual spam filtering - I do it agressively myself, and subscribe to several group-maintained *invidual-use* blacklists that I've chosen to trust (more or less). I'm referring to ISP-level "stealth blocking", esp. that based on the technical capabilities of the sending site, rather than said site being a known spam house. -- -- Stanton McCandlish mech at eff.org http://www.eff.org/~mech Technical Director/Webmaster Electronic Frontier Foundation voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 fax: +1 415 436 9993 EFF, 454 Shotwell St. San Francisco CA 94110 USA --- From honig at sprynet.com Wed Aug 8 13:12:04 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 13:12:04 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108081902.f78J2W501412@slack.lne.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010808131204.008e6780@pop.sprynet.com> At 12:02 PM 8/8/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I >don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers and >ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the DVD spec >which allows this. Probably built into the *contract* that makers of *licensed* viewers have to sign. DVDs can do random access. >So an ad-buster which "circumvented" this would violate the DMCA, >presumably. Good test case. From amaha at vsnl.net Wed Aug 8 11:26:44 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:26:44 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108081826.f78IQi409119@ak47.algebra.com> When anger rises, think of the consequences. --Confucius ===================================================== Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period of 60 days+.We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will make your life peaceful,successful & happy in a way you had never imagined before. If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy From schear at lvcm.com Wed Aug 8 13:34:34 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 13:34:34 -0700 Subject: No fault antitrust In-Reply-To: <3B7132F5.26079.1057795@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806154826.0404ee40@pop3.lvcm.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010808130744.00a9af58@pop3.lvcm.com> At 12:39 PM 8/8/2001 -0700, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: >On 7 Aug 2001, at 14:48, Steve Schear wrote: > > > > At a workshop presentation last spring I suggested a non-regulatory way to > > include reduction in choice effects. Under the proposed changes Congress > > would set market size and penetration limits for all markets (based on SIC > > or its newer offspring) exceeding some minimum size threshold (e.g., 0.1% > > GNP) and enabling competitors to sue in federal court for removal of > > trademarks and copyrights of the monopolist related to the industry in > > question. Since trademarks and copyrights are privileges and not rights > > they can, theoretically, be rescinded. > > >So under this "no fault antitrust" proposal, we strip away the >illusion that the DOJ is punishing predatory behavior and accept >that, in fact, what is being punished is market share dominance? > >Interesting notion, here's why I don't think this will work: the >single difficult point in most of these antitrust cases is >determining what constitutes the market in question in >the first place. For example, in the Microsoft case, Microsoft >was held to have a monoploly on operating systems for computers >which use intel processors. Obviously, there is no such market >in the first place. I think many or most on this list, not to mention within the computer industry, might disagree with you. >There's a server market (in which sun competes), >there's a personal computer market (in which Apple competes), >but there's no fucking such thing as the Intel (or compatible) >powered computer market, it's as absurd a concept as the >spaghetti sauce with Paul Newman's picture on the jar market. This was discussed at the workshop. Its the reason I mention the SICs. My hope is that by extending these Standard Industry Codes to somewhat smaller gradations, none of which would be allowed to fall below some GNP threshold, that MS' classification (almost all of whose business currently falls in the Software Publishing category) might be subdivided into, for example, OS and Office Software Application Suites. > > Under this new regimen companies would be inclined to self-police rather > > than risk legal proceedings from their competitors. By setting legal > > market share limits and placing the initiative in the hands of competitors > > rather than the DOJ it is hoped to remove much of the political > involvement > > in antitrust. > > > > steve > > > > >The other possible advantage of allegedly punishing companies >for actually engaging in unethical actions rather than merely >for getting too large a market share is the (admittedly unlikely) >psossibility that in some cases the claims might be true. > >For example, consider a hypothetical case in which, due to >economies of scale or whatever, that there really only ought to >be one supplier of a given product. No. Though my readings in antitrust have led me to the conclusion that there are few industries in which greater than 50% of market share are required for sufficient economies of scale. One that comes to mind is commercial aircraft. >Would forcing that company to >raise its prices until its market share falls to approved levels really >be to anyone's benefit? It might if I get to have choices which would otherwise be foreclosed once one company reaches a "friction free" point in that industry. steve From maria at businesstravel.com.cn Wed Aug 8 13:43:34 2001 From: maria at businesstravel.com.cn (Maria Chen) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:43:34 Subject: Seek overseas cooperation on Amusement & Leisure Equipment Message-ID: <200108080543.WAA17924@toad.com> Dear Sir or Madam: HuaYang International Commercial Tours Corp., Ltd., affiliated to China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and China Chamber of International Commerce (CCIC), is an organization specially providing services to overseas businessmen. We offer varieties of information and assistance to the businessmen who are interested in Chinese market. China has a huge potential market. As China is going to enter the WTO, amusement and leisure equipment market is bound to expand. From October to December 2001, there will be several trade fairs on amusement and leisure equipment in China: THE 2ND CHINA HANGZHOU INTERNATIONAL GIFTS & TOYS FAIR (CIGTF HANGZHOU) Date: Sept2001 City: Hangzhou INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT AND LEISURE EQUIPMENT EXHIBITION ZHEJIAG Date: Oct2001 City: Hangzhou 2001 TOURING SPECIAL AUTOBUS AND AUTOBOAT FAIR ZHEJIANG Date: Oct2001 City: Hangzhou COSMOPROF ASIA 2001 Date: Nov2001 City: Hongkong SMARTWORLD 2001 Date: 6-9Dec2001 City: Hongkong If you are interested in these issues, please feel free to contact us. To know more about our services, please visit our website: www.businesstravel.com.cn Best Regards! Sincerely yours, Maria Chen Hua Yang International Commercial Tours Corp., Ltd. Beijing, China www.businesstravel.com.cn From maria at businesstravel.com.cn Wed Aug 8 13:43:44 2001 From: maria at businesstravel.com.cn (Maria Chen) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:43:44 Subject: Seek overseas cooperation on Amusement & Leisure Equipment Message-ID: <200108080553.AAA10091@einstein.ssz.com> Dear Sir or Madam: HuaYang International Commercial Tours Corp., Ltd., affiliated to China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and China Chamber of International Commerce (CCIC), is an organization specially providing services to overseas businessmen. We offer varieties of information and assistance to the businessmen who are interested in Chinese market. China has a huge potential market. As China is going to enter the WTO, amusement and leisure equipment market is bound to expand. From October to December 2001, there will be several trade fairs on amusement and leisure equipment in China: THE 2ND CHINA HANGZHOU INTERNATIONAL GIFTS & TOYS FAIR (CIGTF HANGZHOU) Date: Sept2001 City: Hangzhou INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT AND LEISURE EQUIPMENT EXHIBITION ZHEJIAG Date: Oct2001 City: Hangzhou 2001 TOURING SPECIAL AUTOBUS AND AUTOBOAT FAIR ZHEJIANG Date: Oct2001 City: Hangzhou COSMOPROF ASIA 2001 Date: Nov2001 City: Hongkong SMARTWORLD 2001 Date: 6-9Dec2001 City: Hongkong If you are interested in these issues, please feel free to contact us. To know more about our services, please visit our website: www.businesstravel.com.cn Best Regards! Sincerely yours, Maria Chen Hua Yang International Commercial Tours Corp., Ltd. Beijing, China www.businesstravel.com.cn From maria at businesstravel.com.cn Wed Aug 8 13:43:47 2001 From: maria at businesstravel.com.cn (Maria Chen) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:43:47 Subject: Seek overseas cooperation on Amusement & Leisure Equipment Message-ID: <200108080836.f788aJ514266@rigel.cyberpass.net> Dear Sir or Madam: HuaYang International Commercial Tours Corp., Ltd., affiliated to China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and China Chamber of International Commerce (CCIC), is an organization specially providing services to overseas businessmen. We offer varieties of information and assistance to the businessmen who are interested in Chinese market. China has a huge potential market. As China is going to enter the WTO, amusement and leisure equipment market is bound to expand. From October to December 2001, there will be several trade fairs on amusement and leisure equipment in China: THE 2ND CHINA HANGZHOU INTERNATIONAL GIFTS & TOYS FAIR (CIGTF HANGZHOU) Date: Sept2001 City: Hangzhou INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT AND LEISURE EQUIPMENT EXHIBITION ZHEJIAG Date: Oct2001 City: Hangzhou 2001 TOURING SPECIAL AUTOBUS AND AUTOBOAT FAIR ZHEJIANG Date: Oct2001 City: Hangzhou COSMOPROF ASIA 2001 Date: Nov2001 City: Hongkong SMARTWORLD 2001 Date: 6-9Dec2001 City: Hongkong If you are interested in these issues, please feel free to contact us. To know more about our services, please visit our website: www.businesstravel.com.cn Best Regards! Sincerely yours, Maria Chen Hua Yang International Commercial Tours Corp., Ltd. Beijing, China www.businesstravel.com.cn From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 8 13:56:18 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:56:18 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <20010808202854.29704.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: Tim wrote: > 2) What happens in these breaking-and-entering raids if the homeowner > surprises the burglar and kills him? Is a homeowner supposed to somehow > know that the person sneaking around his home has a secret warrant > signed by a secret judge in a secret courtroom? I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but if it did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the presumption that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just shoot first and ask questions later. Having said that, that is a rebutable presumption. If it can be shown that you believed or had reason to believe the intruder was, in fact, some flavor of cop, you cannot rely on the fear-of-death-or-great-bodily-harm presumption. For example, if he raised his hands and you heard him say, "Don't shoot, I'm an FBI agent," you might lose the benefit of the presumption. (You DID hear him say it, right?) In any event, someone will probably back-shoot you then or later, so the legal aspects may be academic. When the federal government can burn to death over 80 innocent Americans (22 of them children) in broad daylight on national television and skate, I don't think there is much they can do and not get away with it. S a n d y From pcw2 at flyzone.com Wed Aug 8 11:04:26 2001 From: pcw2 at flyzone.com (Peter Wayner) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:04:26 -0400 Subject: Watermarks, Satellite Hacking, DMCA and more. Message-ID: <200108081804.LAA25174@robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net> Lately I've been researching the world of satellite signal hacking. Some people think that there may be as many as 1 million people hacking into the DirecTV satellite signal so they can watch all of the sports, all of the movies and all of the porn without paying. As an experiment I decided to sell electronic copies of a long story on the topic. I think both the payment system and the watermarking/copyright protection mechanisms are pretty novel. To get a copy all you need to do is send 75 cents from a paypal account to satstory at flyzone.com. You'll get a personalized watermarked copy in return. This is a far cry from the micropayment digital cash systems of our dreams, but it is fully functional. The watermark is not sophisticated. You can learn how to disable it in the copyright notice to the story. There's no challenge for the 3L33t h4X0rs among you. After all of the fuss about copyright circumvention, I thought a light touch may be better. It was also substantially easier to engineer. My guess is that the ease of use will bring in more sales than are lost to hackers. More information can be found here: http://www.flyzone.com/satstory/ Please let me know if you have any thoughts, complaints, or other suggestions. Peter Wayner pcw at flyzone.com From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 8 11:15:58 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions Message-ID: Here's the most comprehensive source of case law covering the subject I've ever seen: Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations "This publication provides a comprehensive guide to the legal issues that arise when federal law enforcement agents search and seize computers and obtain electronic evidence in criminal investigations. The topics covered include the application of the Fourth Amendment to computers and the Internet, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, workplace privacy, the law of electronic surveillance, and evidentiary issues. This publication supersedes "Federal Guidelines for Searching and Seizing Computers" (1994), as well as the Guidelines' 1997 and 1999 Supplements." http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/searching.html From georgemw at speakeasy.net Wed Aug 8 14:37:38 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:37:38 -0700 Subject: lynx for mirroring? (Re: Advertisements on Web Pages) In-Reply-To: <3B7195D0.26637073@black.org> Message-ID: <3B714EB2.13831.171D0ED@localhost> On 8 Aug 2001, at 12:41, Subcommander Bob wrote: > Declan once gave a lynx command line that would download a website > (recursing) less the images, of course. I found it didn't preserve > file names or directory hierarchy, so it was less useful for mirroring > sites I anticipated being oppressed. Can anyone recommend a better > tool? > For wintel? > > I use something called wget that I go from gnu for this. It just comes as source, although you could probably find a compiled version somewhere. I could email the .exe as an attachment if you want. George From RequiresResponse at starmail.cc Wed Aug 8 14:38:14 2001 From: RequiresResponse at starmail.cc (RequiresResponse at starmail.cc) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:38:14 Subject: EPStrategies Message-ID: <200108082220.f78MKh529349@rigel.cyberpass.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1426 bytes Desc: not available URL: From morlockelloi at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 14:46:12 2001 From: morlockelloi at yahoo.com (Morlock Elloi) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: IRS War Against US Homeland In-Reply-To: <200108081347.JAA06056@barry.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <20010808214612.2317.qmail@web13202.mail.yahoo.com> > And, if IRS is leading homeland defense investigation, that might > well portend most interesting days ahead for cypherpunks. As > well as heighten interest in the undercover operatives here who > presumably have been long engaged in building reputation, > confidence and trust -- or fomenting their opposites -- and > aiming at entrapment by advocating criminal behavior, > as specified by the CI Handbook. There is absolutely nothing new about it. Cypherprankish solution would be strong anonymity instead of complaining on the basis of popular US mythology (constitution et al.) and Californian ideology which seems to prevail here. If you want to make a personal (ie. body-endangering) statement then there are many fora that can accomodate that. If you want to discuss an applied mathematical solution that affects meatspace behaviour (ie. cypher-weapons development) then do it anonymously. There is really no middle ground. Fishing for the meatspace fame subjects you to the meatspace rules - and I find this to be the most serious limiting factor - there is no usable crypto stuff done by mr. Melon. Or to make it really simple: who gives the fuck if 50% of active cpunk subscribers are sponsored by the USG ? They will just prune the stupids. (I *know* that this is not an anon post - by anonymous I mean mixmaster chain originating in camera-less internet cafe far from your usual waterholes.) ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 8 14:53:38 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:53:38 -0700 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108082154.f78Ls2503200@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 02:28 PM, Faustine wrote: > Lots of interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications, I'm > sure... > > Massively Parallel Computational Research Laboratory > http://www.cs.sandia.gov/ Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? (The "challenges" broken by a couple of our own list members over the past several years were all weak ciphers by modern standards, or had key lengths way below even the recommended lengths of the day. Increasing the key lengths by just several bits ups the work factor by a factor of ten or so. Increasing it to recommended levels ups the work factor to the level of "not all the computers that will ever be built in all of the galaxies of the universe" will be able to brute-force a crack.) There are indeed some cryptographic uses for big computers, but not much of real interest here. Some voice- and traffic-analysis stuff, but not cracking modern ciphers. --Tim May From ashwood at msn.com Wed Aug 8 13:16:44 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:16:44 -0500 Subject: Remailer Phases References: Message-ID: <011a01c12047$26ff0aa0$dfc0b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Meyer Wolfsheim" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 5:40 AM Subject: Re: CDR: Re: re: Remailer Phases > On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > > > > > 2. Operator probably trustworthy > > > > > > Impossible, and unnecessary. Don't assume any remops are trustworthy. > > > > Actually it is absolutely necessary. If all operators are willing to > > collude, then your precious anonymity is completely lost. A simple > > tracing methodology can establish this. The first remailer operator > > tracks the > > exact outgoing message to the next collusion, the second tracks to the > > third, etc until the message escapes, then the colluding operators track > > back through > > the list of remailers, linking based on the intermediate value being > > sent, > > until it reaches operator 1 who knows the sending address. This assumes > > a best case of the sender determining the path taken through encryption. > > Worst case the first operator can reveal the information to everyone. > > Joe > > Run your own remailer. Chain through it at some point. As long as you > trust yourself, there is no threat. > > Who of the current remops do you trust? Why? I don't trust any of them. I don't personally use remailers, I don't tend to do things that are illegal, but if I did there are other methods that I'd use. Joe From roy at scytale.com Wed Aug 8 13:17:52 2001 From: roy at scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:17:52 -0500 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108081902.f78J2W501412@slack.lne.com> References: Message-ID: <3B715820.6590.18D9E9B@localhost> On 8 Aug 2001, at 12:02, Tim May wrote: > On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 11:44 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote: > > They're sticking *trailers* on movies that people *pay for??* > > > > Geez.. talk about destroying the value of the merchandise they're > > trying to sell. > > > > Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I > don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers > and ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the > DVD spec which allows this. I can verify that. My copy of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" has 2 trailers that play _before the main menu_. Fortunately, chapter skip goes right by them, but it's still annoying. I've got one or two others with intrusive trailers, but their titles escape me. As I understand it, DVDs are controlled by a (reputedly powerful) script language that allows disabling arbitrary features of the player. (the FBI warning usually won't skip) > So an ad-buster which "circumvented" this would violate the DMCA, > presumably. I can always tell my player to go directly to a title/chapter. Unskippable trailers will probably just lead to my keeping a Sharpie near the player so I can make a note on the new discs as to where I want to start. Is that "circumvention"? Hmmm... The DMCA prohibits Sharpie markers? -- Roy M. Silvernail Proprietor, scytale.com roy at scytale.com From phelix at vallnet.com Wed Aug 8 13:21:49 2001 From: phelix at vallnet.com (phelix at vallnet.com) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 15:21:49 -0500 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages References: Message-ID: On 8 Aug 2001 15:04:24 -0500, "Trei, Peter" wrote: >Over 20-30 DVDs I've seen none *forced* you to watch the >trailers - they have always been part of the 'extra features' stuff off >the main menu. > >OTOH, they all *do* force you to sit through the FBI and Interpol >warnings for about 15 seconds. Some discs disable the FF button and the menu button. You can still skip the ads, but you have to skip each ad individually (with the chapter skip button). I recall usenet discussions citing 6 - 8 ads at the beginning of some discs. I do recall Disney putting out a few DVDs that really did block all attempts to skip ads, but they have since backed off on it. I suggest using google to search the newsgroup alt.video.dvd. From remailer at remailer.xganon.com Wed Aug 8 13:26:52 2001 From: remailer at remailer.xganon.com (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:26:52 -0500 Subject: Remailer Phases Message-ID: <884458943c960d0103eb7ff180524825@remailer.xganon.com> Paul Harrison : > And "we" (whoever that is) need traffic, traffic, traffic. A good > mixmaster net importantly includes lots of source address and exit > addresses. Each of which plausibly is generating or consuming real > content. The best chaff is somebody else's real email not some > PRNG-driven bot output. Sounds like a good reason to encrypt and distribute the list through the mixmaster network. I believe the first thing to do is figure out why remailers drop messages so frequently. (But, don't let me discourage you from generating traffic if that interests you. If you aren't doing so already, why not try a few anonymous posts? It's fun!) From remailer at anon.xg.nu Wed Aug 8 13:27:14 2001 From: remailer at anon.xg.nu (Public ) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:27:14 -0500 Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops Message-ID: My studies show about 1 chance in 20 that any particular running remailer will drop a message. This is based on sending a bunch of messages through chains of remailers of varying length and seeing how many arrive in a day or so, and then calculating the average probability. Note that in a chain of twenty remailers this causes many messages to be dropped. Even if we achieve a reliability rate of 1 in 100,000, this means about 1 in 5000 messages will be lost through a chain of 20 remailers. For some reason remailer culture has accepted message drops as normal. They aren't normal. There isn't any reason why a remailer should be any less reliable than a mail server. I estimate mail servers are far more reliable than 1 loss in 100,000 messages. One possibility is that some of my tests went through remailers that are just down. This hasn't been ruled out beyond any reasonable doubt, but it appears that the drops are occuring in remailers which are still carrying traffic. I did an extensive series of tests with an internal mixmaster network running Mixmaster 2.0.3. I had to fool around with it, but I was able to run many hundreds of messages through chains of 20 hops without a single message drop. The core software appears to be solid (unless bugs have been introduced into more recent releases ;-), but the setup needs to be tweaked. The practice of putting something like this into .forward is a problem: "|/usr9/loki/Devel/Mix/mixmaster -R >> /usr/spool/mail/username" If too many messages come in at once this brings a machine to its knees because it runs many mixmaster processes at once. There may also be a bug in mixmaster which is only expressed when many mixmaster processes simultaneously tries to queue a message. FYI, this also creates an easy DoS on a mixmaster node. Just send the node a bunch of messages which loop back into itself over and over again. This should rapidly cause sendmail to spawn many mixmaster processes and lock up the machine. I haven't tried this on anybody else's mixmaster node. The solution is to have a small program which puts incoming messages into a spool file. I've enclosed the perl script I used, which comes with no guarantees and hasn't been tested all that much. (It would be nice if errors went to a log file instead of being bounced.) The script copies the message into a file in the spool directory starting with "temp". Then it moves it to a file starting with "spool". The reason for the move is to guarantee that all "spool" files are complete messages. The time of creation is encoded in the name so a processing program can get the files in order. The other pieces needed are a small perl script which monitors the spool directory and calls mixmaster to queue up each file and another process which calls mixmaster repeatedly to process the queued messages. This setup causes no more than two mixmaster processes to run at a time and is more robust. Would somebody mind polling the remailer operators to see how many are running mixmaster directly from .forward? I suspect this is most of the problem. If it isn't, we need to eliminate it before pursuing the next suspect. ---cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here--- #!/usr/bin/perl -w # This code is in the public domain. # Put in a .forward file. Spools mail into a directory for processing # by something else. require 5; use strict; use English; my(@pwvals) = getpwuid($UID); my($homedir) = $pwvals[7]; my($spooldir) = "$homedir/spool"; die "Home directory doesn't exist." if ! -e $homedir; die "Home directory isn't a directory." if ! -d $homedir; die "$spooldir doesn't exist." if ! -e $spooldir; die "$spooldir is not a directory." if ! -d $spooldir; my($now) = time; my($now_string); if( length($now) < 12 ) { $now_string = ('0' x (12 - length($now))) . $now; } my($temppath) = "$spooldir/temp.$now_string.$$"; die "Amazingly, $temppath already exists." if -e $temppath; open(SPOOLFILE, ">$temppath") or die "Could not open $temppath for writing.\n"; while(<>) { print SPOOLFILE $_; } close(SPOOLFILE); my($spoolpath) = "$spooldir/spool.$now_string.$$"; die "Amazingly, $spoolpath already exists." if -e $spoolpath; if( ! rename $temppath, $spoolpath ) { die "Could not rename $temppath to $spoolpath."; } # Let sendmail know everything is fine. exit(0); From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Wed Aug 8 12:28:30 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:28:30 -0400 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages Message-ID: > Tim May[SMTP:tcmay at got.net] wrote > > On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 11:44 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> (Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or > >> copright > >> protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA > >> violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in > >> the > >> DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be > >> fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build > >> devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.) > > > > They're sticking *trailers* on movies that people *pay for??* > > > > Geez.. talk about destroying the value of the merchandise they're > > trying to sell. > > Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I > don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers and > ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the DVD spec > which allows this. > > So an ad-buster which "circumvented" this would violate the DMCA, > presumably. > --Tim May > Commercial VHS tapes have had trailers (and occasionally ads) at the start for several years, but they can be zapped with FF. Over 20-30 DVDs I've seen none *forced* you to watch the trailers - they have always been part of the 'extra features' stuff off the main menu. OTOH, they all *do* force you to sit through the FBI and Interpol warnings for about 15 seconds. BTW: my VCR has a feature that allows it to automatically FF through ads. It works about 90% of the time, and is a very nice thing to have. Peter Trei From hseaver at ameritech.net Wed Aug 8 13:38:33 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 15:38:33 -0500 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages References: <200108081902.f78J2W501412@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B71A320.9D22B957@ameritech.net> Tim May wrote: > Yes, we have heard here (or at a physical meeting, I forget which). I > don't buy many DVDs, but this was discussed. Apparently the trailers and > ads cannot be fast-forwarded through...something built into the DVD spec > which allows this. > Well, I watch a lot of DVD's, probably at least 2, sometimes 4-5 a week. Not having a TV or VCR, I watch them on my computer, and, at least on there, I haven't noticed any problems with skipping the ads and trailers. You have let them start, then hit the menu icon and then play the movie. On some, the menu also gives you the choice of playing the trailers -- seems to be a lot of difference depending on company. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 8 15:48:45 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:48:45 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions References: <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <000b01c1205c$48eb8840$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 8:59 AM Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions > On Tuesday, August 7, 2001, at 10:24 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > > Interesting -- where did I get the idea that warrants for > > "surreptitious entry" were only allowd for cases of national security. I > > thought Reno was trying to get Congress to pass legalizing this, but was > > turned down. > > > > First off, there is nothing particularly special about bugging a > computer for passwords. Keystroke capture programs and RF bugs have been > out for many years. And sneaking into homes and businesses to plant > audio and even video bugs has been happening for many years, sometimes > with secret warrants, sometimes without. Bugging a computer is not > legally any different than bugging a telephone line. (Though if the > computer is used as a confessional, or for attorney-client > communications...OTOH, these uses are possible with telephones and I > haven't heard that phone bugging is illegal. According to my sources > ("The Sopranos" 8-)), those doing the bugging are supposed to "not > listen" except when putatively criminal acts are being discussed. > > But as long as we're back on the subject of surreptitious warrants and > black bag jobs: > > I've wondered about two main things vis-a-vis these "black bag jobs" > inside the U.S.: > > 1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of > whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is it > possible that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every > warrant discussed in open testimony? No. Other examples: FISA actions, internally dropped IRS investigations etc. > 2) What happens in these breaking-and-entering raids if the homeowner > surprises the burglar and kills him? Is a homeowner supposed to somehow > know that the person sneaking around his home has a secret warrant > signed by a secret judge in a secret courtroom? Technically speaking, if the homeowner is justified in using deadly force otherwise (fear of imminent harm to life or property etc.) and in the absence of a clear identification of the intruder as an officer, (verbal or otherwise) contemporaneous street justice is the only thing that the homeowner needs to fear. (Note of course the requirement for "retreat to capacity" and such in your state of residence and other use of deadly force ramifications). > (Sandy and Black Unicorn will doubtless consider it "bellicose" to say > that if I ever find a black-clad ninja rustling around in my house, I > expect to treat him as I would treat any other such varmint. I think you probably mean Mr. Sandfort. I never took any position on that issue or involved myself in the previous squabble that I believe you are referring to. > A double > tap in the center of mass. Probably Black thinks "Mr. Happy Fun Court > will not be amused.") It's "Happy-fun-court" not "Mr. Happy Fun Court" and insofar as that's a metaphor for circumstances technically legal but subjectively ugly, yes. I doubt anyone here will contend that the shooting of a police officer (even an off duty police officer committing a felony) will be treated like any other shooting incident. Fair enough to say that shooting police officers- in whatever circumstances- might be tantamount to "taunting Happy-fun-court." > So much for the Fourth Amendment, which was designed to protect against > precisely this kind of police and state snooping. When a scrap of paper, > issued in secret, enables the king's men to wander through a house, the > "secure in one's papers and possessions" right has become moot. Agreed. > The fact that judges now issues secret orders in secret hearings is not > an excuse--I'm sure King George's men also had pieces of paper from the > local rulers. > > On the bright side, I expect this will cause those who think they may be > targets of such snooping and breaking-and-entering to beef up their > security, to install video cameras (defeatable, but also countermeasures > to these defeats, such as offsite storage, 802.11b transmission to > hidden recorders, etc.), and to do more of their sensitive work with > laptops which they carry with them at all times. > > (Today's 3-pound subnotebooks would be perfect, even for a > style-conscious Mafia don. Or a PDA, for crypto. Lots of options. I'll > leave it to Black Unicorn to explain to us that beefing up security is > spoliation.) Beefing up security in conjunction with the commission of a crime is certainly taunting Happy-fun-court. No different than the old "why use crypto if you have nothing to hide" argument, just a different (denser) audience than usual. The rest of your implication about my position is overreaching on your part. From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 8 15:51:14 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:51:14 -0700 Subject: Microsoft Risking "Spoliation" Charges References: <200108081839.f78Idb501213@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <001a01c1205c$a1a7e6e0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 11:39 AM Subject: Microsoft Risking "Spoliation" Charges > Looks like Microsoft is racing to get copies of XP out where they can't > be retrieved, where the distribution is a done deal, a fact on the > ground. > > No word yet on whether Black Unicorn's "Mr. Happy Fun Court" is "not > amused." Again, that's "Happy-fun-court" and not "Mr. Happy Fun Court." From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 8 15:53:55 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:53:55 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions References: Message-ID: <002b01c1205d$017d22b0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandy Sandfort" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:56 PM Subject: RE: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions > Tim wrote: > > > 2) What happens in these breaking-and-entering raids if the homeowner > > surprises the burglar and kills him? Is a homeowner supposed to somehow > > know that the person sneaking around his home has a secret warrant > > signed by a secret judge in a secret courtroom? > > I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but if it > did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the presumption > that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research > that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He > doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just > shoot first and ask questions later. I didn't realize any states but Virginia still held this old "burglary" definition. Are you certain that's current law? From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 8 16:06:56 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:06:56 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <002b01c1205d$017d22b0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: Black Unicorn wrote: > I didn't realize any states but Virginia > still held this old "burglary" definition. > Are you certain that's current law? No, but I'm about to leave town on business so I won't be looking it up. My recollection is that California law actually IMPROVED from the viewpoint of the defender. Prior to a few years ago, you had to make some showing of fear of great bodily harm or death before you could shoot an intruder. The law was changed to make it presumptive that someone in your house was there for those reasons. Having said that, I'm not sure if the night vs day distinction was in the new law or just what I recall from law school. :'D S a n d y From znyxlc32 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 8 16:16:48 2001 From: znyxlc32 at yahoo.com (znyxlc32 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:16:48 -0700 Subject: Wanna meet fun and interesting people fo FREE!?!? 934238434ishjqvfmg Message-ID: <200108082316.QAA00193@sgi4.netservers.net> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (znyxlc32 at yahoo.com) on Wednesday, August 8, 2001 at 16:16:48 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- msg:

Are you looking for your one true love? Or are you a lonely single man or woman? Or are you just a married man or woman that wants to chat and have fun.. well for anyone of these things, Adult Friend Finders is just for you. Now you may be thinking that this is some pornography site, but I assure you it is not. Adult Friend Finders has been around for over 32 years, and is the internet's #1 Adult Friend Finding Network. We have over 500,000+ members and this number is growing as we speak. One major opportunity that we have is a FREE membership program, along with a non-free membership progam. The free program allows you to find sexy and interesting personals, of people that would suit you. You can chat and have a good time on AFF, without being obligated. So join for free today, or you will be missing out on one of the greatest friend finding networks in the world! < a href="http://laser.to/adultfinders">Join Today For FREE and! have a look around!!! Who knows! You may just find your soul mate! ;o)



934238434ishjqvfmg



--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From gbroiles at well.com Wed Aug 8 16:21:33 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 16:21:33 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com> References: <3B70CD1C.73359D93@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010808091415.03eda1c0@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 08:59 AM 8/8/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: > According to my sources ("The Sopranos" 8-)), those doing the bugging > are supposed to "not listen" except when putatively criminal acts are > being discussed. The Sopranos gets it right - the process is called "minimization", and is intended to limit the evidence collected to only that which discloses criminal activity - there are strict rules about how a conversation can be sampled, as the show portrayed. But the agents don't need to follow the rules if they don't intend to ever use the proceeds of the tap in court, or disclose its existence. >1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of >whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is it possible >that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every warrant >discussed in open testimony? Yes. There is a time limit for when they should be disclosed if they don't lead to a prosecution - that time limit can be extended by a judge, if the agents think they need more time to develop a case. I don't believe the (federal) law allows for taps to go undisclosed forever, but I believe it happens anyway. Since the undisclosed taps aren't likely to be the focus of litigation, there's no effective check on that practice. >2) What happens in these breaking-and-entering raids if the homeowner >surprises the burglar and kills him? Ask Randy Weaver's son, Sam. Whoops, he's dead, like his mom and their dog that barked at the secret police infiltrating their rural property. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From roy at scytale.com Wed Aug 8 14:34:24 2001 From: roy at scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:34:24 -0500 Subject: lynx for mirroring? (Re: Advertisements on Web Pages) In-Reply-To: <3B7195D0.26637073@black.org> Message-ID: <3B716A10.12217.1D39F93@localhost> On 8 Aug 2001, at 12:41, Subcommander Bob wrote: > Declan once gave a lynx command line that would download a website > (recursing) less the images, of course. I found it didn't preserve > file names or directory hierarchy, so it was less useful for mirroring > sites I anticipated being oppressed. Can anyone recommend a better > tool? For wintel? If you have Perl on your Wintel box, try w3mir. I use it at home and at work. Works great for me! -- Roy M. Silvernail Proprietor, scytale.com roy at scytale.com From rsw at MIT.EDU Wed Aug 8 13:38:52 2001 From: rsw at MIT.EDU (Riad S. Wahby) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:38:52 -0400 Subject: lynx for mirroring? (Re: Advertisements on Web Pages) In-Reply-To: <3B7195D0.26637073@black.org>; from bob@black.org on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:41:05PM -0700 References: <3B7195D0.26637073@black.org> Message-ID: <20010808163852.A11913@positron.mit.edu> Subcommander Bob wrote: > Declan once gave a lynx command line that would download a website > (recursing) less the images, of course. I found it didn't preserve > file names or directory hierarchy, so it was less useful for mirroring > sites I anticipated being oppressed. Can anyone recommend a better > tool? > For wintel? wget does this very well. I'm sure you can build it under Cygwin. -- Riad Wahby rsw at mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 8 16:48:47 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:48:47 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <20010808230303.28436.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <200108082349.f78Nn2504212@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 04:03 PM, Dr. Evil wrote: >> I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but >> if it >> did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the >> presumption > > Actually, now that I think about it, I think it is essentially > impossible for it to ever happen. If it were to happen, it is almost > certain that either the breaking-and-entering team or the > suspect/homeowner or both would be injured or killed in the ensuing > firefight. The FBI knows this. Having agents injured is absolutely > unacceptable to them, and having suspects injured or killed is also a > highly undesirable outcome for them. You can be sure that during the > break-in, they would have a team watching every approach to the house. > If somehow or other someone showed up to enter the house during this > time, and the FBI couldn't get him distracted in some way, they would > just flash their badges and arrest him before he went in. And now that I think about it some more as well, I wonder if some of the more controversial black bag jobs are subcontracted out to NGOs. The stuff of many a bad B-movie on late night cable, there are still a lot of reasons why gangs would be hired to hit the homes of political dissidents. (Lon Horiuchi still has a bounty on his head by some Aryan groups, and has dropped off the face of the "official" earth, so the Fedz are probably upping their use of Beltway Bandits. I know I would if I were them. I'd hire some Original Gangstas to do my dirty work...through cut-outs, of course, so that if they didn't get zapped by the target, or by the clean-up crew, they couldn't narc out their employers. Like I said, a bad B-movie on Cinemax, probably starring either Lorenzo Lamas or Don "The Dragon.") --Tim May > Sure, their > investigation would be compromised (blown) and they would be very > unhappy about that, but the alternative is guaranteed to be > infinitely worse, so they would do it to cut their losses. So no, > you will never walk in and surprise some FBI agents messing with your > computer. Don't worry about it. > >> that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to >> research >> that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. >> He >> doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can >> just >> shoot first and ask questions later. >> >> Having said that, that is a rebutable presumption. If it can be shown >> that >> you believed or had reason to believe the intruder was, in fact, some >> flavor >> of cop, you cannot rely on the fear-of-death-or-great-bodily-harm >> presumption. For example, if he raised his hands and you heard him >> say, >> "Don't shoot, I'm an FBI agent," you might lose the benefit of the >> presumption. (You DID hear him say it, right?) > > If a reasonable person found some intruders in his home, and they > yelled at him, "I'm an FBI agent!", and started drawing weapons (which > is what they would do), would it be reasonable for him to believe > them, and comply, or to disbelieve them, and shoot back? He has less > than a second (less than the time it takes to say "FBI") to make this > decision, btw. I guess that's the question, and we all have our > opinions about what the answer is, but ultimately the jury would have > to decide what is reasonable, and a lot of their decision would be > based on their judgement of the character of the shooter, and their > perception of how the FBI handled themselves. Is the suspect a sleaze > with a history of violence, or is he a sober, reasonable, cool-headed > person with a clean record and documented training about what to do in > a self-defence situation? Did the FBI make a plan that took every > possible precaution to prevent this from happening, and did they have > the right knowledge and equipment to complete the job quickly, or did > they go in without proper preparation? The answer to those questions > might be the answer to the bigger question. Looking at the bright > side of this, the FBI would take extreme precautions to make sure that > this situation never comes up, so don't worry about it. From gbroiles at speakeasy.org Wed Aug 8 17:01:16 2001 From: gbroiles at speakeasy.org (gbroiles at speakeasy.org) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 17:01:16 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <002b01c1205d$017d22b0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010808162249.03850610@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 03:53 PM 8/8/2001 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote: >From: "Sandy Sandfort" > > > [...] In California, there is the presumption > > that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research > > that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He > > doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just > > shoot first and ask questions later. > >I didn't realize any states but Virginia still held this old "burglary" >definition. Are you certain that's current law? Not quite current - the cite you guys need is CA Penal Code 198.5, which says that a person who uses deadly force, within their residence, against another person, shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death of great bodily injury (and hence has a defense to a homicide charge) if - 1. The intruder is not a member of the family or household; and 2. The intruder is entering, or has entered forcefully and unlawfully; and 3. The defender knew of the forceful and unlawful entry .. but CA appellate courts have been quick to uphold convictions for borderline cases, as in _State v. Brown_ 6 Cal App 4th. 1489 (3rd Dist, 1992), where entry by a hammer-wielding man onto an unenclosed front porch, where only an unlocked screen door stood between the intruder and the defender, was not considered entry into a "residence" for purposes of 198.5, and the defender was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for shooting the hammer-wielder. Generally, people interested in the topic of self-defense under California law would do well to read Penal Code sections 197-200, and the cases interpreting those statutes. From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 14:07:12 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:07:12 -0400 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108071934.f77JYs525950@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:34:27PM -0700 References: <3B703D05.F52AB20@ameritech.net> <200108071934.f77JYs525950@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010808170712.A20934@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:34:27PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Interestingly, about 15-20 years ago there was much talk of the "3M" > machine: a megapixel display, a megabyte of memory, and a million > instructions per second. We have obviously gone up by 100x or more in NeXT used that line with some of their early designs. The monitor on my NeXTcube (which I bought in summer 1989) was 1120x832. Not as good as my current laptop. -Declan From kerry at vscape.com Wed Aug 8 17:13:39 2001 From: kerry at vscape.com (Kerry L. Bonin) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 17:13:39 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions Message-ID: <3.0.32.20010808171238.03201b10@192.168.1.2> At 04:21 PM 8/8/01 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: >At 08:59 AM 8/8/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >> According to my sources ("The Sopranos" 8-)), those doing the bugging >> are supposed to "not listen" except when putatively criminal acts are >> being discussed. > >The Sopranos gets it right - the process is called "minimization", and is >intended to limit the evidence collected to only that which discloses >criminal activity - there are strict rules about how a conversation can be >sampled, as the show portrayed. > >But the agents don't need to follow the rules if they don't intend to ever >use the proceeds of the tap in court, or disclose its existence. There is the additional use of evidence raised publicly in LA a few years back - that LEO routinely passed information collected during wiretapping to other officers that could be used to collect legal grounds for admissible search against people not directly related to the initial wiretapping. In the LA case, this was sometimes as simple as "be at X at Y time", where the tipped off LEO could observe an incident "accidentally" without having to reveal their source. >>1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of >>whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is it possible >>that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every warrant >>discussed in open testimony? > >Yes. There is a time limit for when they should be disclosed if they don't >lead to a prosecution - that time limit can be extended by a judge, if the >agents think they need more time to develop a case. I don't believe the >(federal) law allows for taps to go undisclosed forever, but I believe it >happens anyway. Since the undisclosed taps aren't likely to be the focus of >litigation, there's no effective check on that practice. I'd imagine this would depend on the nature of the investigation. If the feds can make a case that unsealing the warrant could compromise a "critical contact" (even if they are in fact a worthless paid informant used as a warrant justification factory) or a "critical technical means" (i.e. Radio Shack directional microphone), its likely this would never be unsealed. There are also cases where "national security" is raised by SS/CIA/NSA/EPA(sic), and the public will never see any of the paperwork shreds. From unicorn at schloss.li Wed Aug 8 17:23:08 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:23:08 -0700 Subject: NGOs and Black Bag Jobs? Was: Re: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions References: <200108082349.f78Nn2504212@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <006901c12069$7e85d700$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:48 PM Subject: Re: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions > On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 04:03 PM, Dr. Evil wrote: > > >> I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but > >> if it > >> did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the > >> presumption > > > > Actually, now that I think about it, I think it is essentially > > impossible for it to ever happen. If it were to happen, it is almost > > certain that either the breaking-and-entering team or the > > suspect/homeowner or both would be injured or killed in the ensuing > > firefight. The FBI knows this. Having agents injured is absolutely > > unacceptable to them, and having suspects injured or killed is also a > > highly undesirable outcome for them. You can be sure that during the > > break-in, they would have a team watching every approach to the house. > > If somehow or other someone showed up to enter the house during this > > time, and the FBI couldn't get him distracted in some way, they would > > just flash their badges and arrest him before he went in. > > And now that I think about it some more as well, I wonder if some of the > more controversial black bag jobs are subcontracted out to NGOs. The > stuff of many a bad B-movie on late night cable, there are still a lot > of reasons why gangs would be hired to hit the homes of political > dissidents. Absolutely they are- but quite a bit more sophisticated than the "gang" or "mafia" contacts a la the U.S. and Cuba in the 1960s. See e.g. E-Systems (look particularly at it's board of directors- a who's who of former intelligence big wigs). 8 of every 10 dollars in their contracting revenue are from classified projects. E-Systems employees were frequently doing counter-narcotics intelligence work inside the U.S. and reporting directly to intelligence agencies without the charter to operate domestically. This came to light more recently when one E-Systems employee- while cleaning his weapon in a motel room in preparation for an operation- had an accidental discharge and killed a guest in the adjacent room. (4+ million paid to the widow after a lawsuit in 1991). > --Tim May From ashwood at msn.com Wed Aug 8 15:26:59 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:26:59 -0500 Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops References: Message-ID: <020301c12059$ac5def60$dfc0b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:05 PM Subject: CDR: Re: Mixmaster Message Drops > The next major question is to determine where the drops are happening. > Inbound, outbound, inter-remailer, intra-remailer? That matters from a correction view but not from a usage view, which I assume we're taking. Basically we don't care what technology the remailer uses as long as it is correct technology and trustable. From there we care only what remailers are disfunctional and which are useful. > > One aspect of this, assuming the remailers are under attack and that is > the hypothesis we are going to assume, is that we need to be able to > inject traffic into the remailer stream anonymously. Otherwise Mallet > get's wise to what is going on and starts playing us. Well assuming that the remailers are under attack, we start using digital signatures with initiation information stored in them. Mallet can introduce duplicates, but the likelihood of a duplicate being detected rises very quickly, (i.e at a rate of 1-(1/20)^M for M duplicate messages assuming a drop rate of 1 in 20). This gives us the ability to discount the vast majority of what Mallet does and get very close to accurate values. The bigger risk is for Mallet to identify our queries and force the proper functioning of the node exclusively for the query. Correcting this is much more difficult, but would only take the use of digital signatures and encryption on all the messages traversing the network. Since the remailer user inherently a more developed user than Joe (l)User this is much more reasonable. But still approaches impossible because the remailer users is a finite set so Mallet could store all the remailer user keys, and treat them differently from the query keys. This becomes extremely difficult as long term keys are defeated as well as ephemeral keys. Instead the remailer users will have to maintain statistics, or at least a large unknown portion of them. If users upload to say freenet once a month the number of anonymous messages they have sent and recieved (without mention of timeframe except implicitly month) we could get an overall droprate, and the users wouldn't have to reveal who they are. > If at all possible all measurements should be made anonymously and as > stealthily as possible. Agreed I was beginning to adress this above, it still has some major problems. > Q: How to inject traffic into the remailer network anonymously? through a set of trusted remailers, if those remailers are trusted and are used for test initiation, then the exact droprate from that entry point will be known. This will build a reputation for those remailers making it desirable for trustable remailer operators to be in that set by increasing the number of messages, leading to better security by initiating from the trusted list. > Q: How do we measure the input/output flow without collusion of the > operator? You count the messages in and the messages out, you don't care what they say, where they're from etc, the operator doesn'tr even need to know you're doing it. Of course this is a rather difficult task, the better option would be to test the network as a whole, by colluding of users to collect statistics on their own messages going through, this would defeat much of what Mallet could do because the test messages would be real messages that are being propogated through. > Q: Where are the computing resources to munge resulting flood of data over > at least a few weeks time period. How do we hide this 'extra' flow of > data? It represents an opportunity for incidental monitoring due to > load usage. Wouldn't be that bad. Treating the network as a function of it's entry-point seems easiest. Then it's just a simple fraction which can be published raw or you can waste 4 seconds on a 1GHz machine and compute the values. Either way it's not compute intensive, most of the work needs to be done by legitimate users with legitimate messages (to prevent Mallet from playing with the messages). > Q: How do we munge the data? What are we trying to 'fit'? We are trying to determine the best entry-point for anonymous remailer use as measured by percentage of messages that reach their destination, as filtered by being "trusted". > Q: Once we have the data and can (dis)prove the hypothesis, then what? Then we only trust the servers on the "trusted" list, and we use the best remailer from the list in terms of delivery. This will encourage individuals that run worthless remailers to improve their systems, eventually leading to the dropping of only a handful of messages a year. Joe From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 8 14:28:23 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia Message-ID: Lots of interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications, I'm sure... Massively Parallel Computational Research Laboratory http://www.cs.sandia.gov/ Linux On Steroids By Jason Levitt You can salivate over the fastest computers in the world by browsing http://www.top500.org, or you can build your own. Sandia National Laboratories, which conducts research under the auspices of the Department of Energy, has released Cplant open-source software for building Linux supercomputing clusters. -->The 50 Mbytes of source code is available free to those who want to build a supercomputer using off-the-shelf hardware.<-- Cplant is designed to link PCs running Linux to create highly scalable, parallel computing clusters typically used for intensive number-crunching required by activities such as seismic research and economic forecasting. Building your own Linux cluster capable of supercomputer-class computing still will cost thousands, but by using conventional PCs running Linux, a Cplant cluster will be several orders of magnitude cheaper than a Sun E10000 Starfire, a Fujitsu VPP5000, or any other name-brand supercomputer or proprietary clustering system. "Our systems are roughly four times cheaper for the same Linpack number," says Neil Pundit, department manager of scalable computer systems at Sandia, in Albuquerque, N.M. Linpack is a benchmark program widely used to rate the basic computational performance of supercomputers. A 1,000-node Cplant cluster ranked 31st last year on the http://www.top500.org site with a Linpack number of 512 gigaflops. The Cplant software can be downloaded at http://www.sandia.gov. Sandia's Linux cluster, Antarctica, is one of the largest and most powerful in the world, with 1,500 rack-mounted Compaq 1U servers, each with a 466- MHz Alpha CPU and 256 Mbytes of RAM. The machines are interconnected using Myricom Inc.'s Myrinet gigabit clustering hardware, which is widely used for clustering and is sold by 18 of the 20 largest computer companies. The Cplant software requires you to use Myricom's clustering hardware, which roughly doubles the cost of hardware for each Linux system but is a key component of Cplant's fast internode communication. Sandia uses Antarctica to simulate physical phenomena such as the effects of radioactive materials as well as for weather forecasting. From info at goweb.pt Wed Aug 8 09:35:20 2001 From: info at goweb.pt (Go Web, Lda) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 01 17:35:20 +0100 Subject: Parceria de Revenda Message-ID: <200108081241503.SM01068@comercial> Caro(s) Sr(s).: A Go Web - Produção de Páginas Internet Lda. é uma empresa dedicada às novas tecnologias, centrando as suas atenções na produção de páginas de Internet (Web Design), alojamento e serviço de e-mails (Web Hosting), e Design Gráfico. Sediados em Matosinhos - zona do Grande Porto, Portugal - temos cerca de 150 clientes em todo o país, bem como em Cabo Verde e Angola, sempre garantindo um excelente nível de serviço. Estamos neste momento a procurar disponibilizar a nossa oferta de serviços fora do nosso país, principalmente no que diz respeito ao serviços de alojamento de páginas. Assim, gostariamos de saber do seu interesse em revender, numa primeira fase, o nosso serviço de Web Hosting em condições a combinar oportunamente, caso exista interesse. Este negócio deverá ser vantajoso para as duas partes, dado que poderemos ampliar o nosso e vosso leque de clientes e poderá ter mais um produto de excelente qualidade para vender com margens recompensadoras. Caso exista interesse nesta parceria, estamos disponíveis para dar mais informações e para prestar qualquer esclarecimento, bastando para tal contactar-nos para o e-mail info at goweb.pt para o Fax +351 22 9363275 ou para o Telefone +351 22 9363273 Pode ainda verificar o nosso web site em http://www.goweb.pt/ Melhores cumprimentos, Sérgio Tavares From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 8 17:36:47 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:36:47 -0700 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108090037.f790b3504872@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 05:06 PM, Faustine wrote: > On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 02:28 PM, Faustine wrote: > >> Lots of interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications, I'm >> sure... >> Massively Parallel Computational Research Laboratory >> http://www.cs.sandia.gov/ >> Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting >> cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? > > Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher > talk > about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last > Thursday. > Hearsay and hot air? Probably; nothing that merits repeating. But it's > hardly a dead issue. And why not name who this researcher was, and why you think the cipher he was trying to break was Cypherpunks-interesting? (Mere factors of 100 are not interesting, vis-a-vis good ciphers and large keys. Arguably, as we have discussed many times, not even "swimming pools full of Adleman DNA computers" make a difference.) >> (The "challenges" broken by a couple of our own list members over the >> past several years were all weak ciphers by modern standards, or had >> key >> lengths way below even the recommended lengths of the day. Increasing >> the key lengths by just several bits ups the work factor by a factor of >> ten or so. Increasing it to recommended levels ups the work factor to >> the level of "not all the computers that will ever be built in all of >> the galaxies of the universe" will be able to brute-force a crack.) > > We've all heard that line before, but I still don't think it's too far- > fetched to assume that anyone who does work in this area might > appreciate > 50 megs of free software to create his own supercomputer. > Fatuous nonsense, Beowulf clusters have been out for several years. The hard part is getting 50 Pentiums, not the software. As for "50 gigaflops," big whoop. A readily-available dual G4 machine is rated at about 8-10 gigaflops. (Or "FLOPS," as you wish.) Still not interesting for cracking ciphers, in the real world. > > You never know what might come from putting that kind of computational > power in the hands of people here. Create, break, do whatever you want. You need to get up to speed, so to speak. --Tim May From adam at homeport.org Wed Aug 8 14:43:06 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:43:06 -0400 Subject: Teasing happy fun court Message-ID: <20010808174305.A17800@weathership.homeport.org> > Lawyers May Reveal Secrets of Clients, Bar Group Rules > Backers of an initiative to overhaul legal ethics rules, allowing > lawyers more leeway to disclose client confidences to prevent fraud, > injury or death, won a partial victory at the annual meeting of the > American Bar Association in Chicago this week. > > The House of Delegates, the body that sets policy for the > organization, voted 243 to 184 on Monday to approve a proposal > allowing lawyers to disclose confidences when doing so prevents > "reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/national/08ETHI.html -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From ashwood at msn.com Wed Aug 8 15:46:04 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:46:04 -0500 Subject: Remailer Phases References: <44eccadca7fa386b679154e037f14959@paranoici.org> Message-ID: <023101c1205b$fa788640$dfc0b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anonymous" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:48 PM Subject: CDR: Re: Remailer Phases > An Unknown Party wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > > > We need a good mixmaster net. > > > > > > working remailer: > > > 1. Average latency less than 5 min > > > > Bad. See the papers done on threats of traffic analysis/spam attacks > > against remailers. > > "Average latency" exists. What do you think it should be? > > a) 5 minutes > b) 5 hours > c) 5 days > d) 5 months > e) longer > > I like a). As has been pointed out it's not latency but latency/messages that matters. If there are 2 messages a day going through the system then 5 minutes is simply not enough, it will be completely traceable. OTOH if there are 5000/sec going through the system then 5 minutes is arguably overkill. I think that with the current relatively low level of usage 24 hours is the minimum average latency that should be used. Of course this is across the entire Mixmaster net where messages could be dispersed enter at any location and leave at any location. Based on this I believe that each node should maintain a list l of known other nodes. It should of course select a delay time at random say up to t time. Assuming that the server will choose a new exit point at perfect random from itself (where it will exit immediately on timer expiration) and l this gives an equation for t in hours f(t) = necessaryDelay; f(t) = t + ((|l|-1)/|l|)f(t), by finding the solution for t you will find the necessary average t. I don't have the time to solve this right now but given a list l of magnitude 100 the value of t will be significantly greater than 5 minutes. So the remaining question is what value to use for necessary delay? This is also dependent on the number of known nodes. All nodes must be equally likely for the transfer for obvious reasons. Based on this I believe that necessaryDelay needs to be greater than the time needed to receive |l| messages. The reason for this is fairly simple, at the extreme we have only one possible message going through the system at once, this is obviously bad, an observer simply watches the output of the system, and what comes out is what they are looking for. with at least |l| messages going through a node and |l| necessary delay time (note that as the magnitude of l increases the entire system slows, this could be bad, I'm sure I'm missing something that will dominate on scaling) each message can be mistaken for other messages. Since it is expectable that the usage of remailers will increase at least as fast as the size of l the latency will likely decrease over time. If there is sufficient demand it is entirely reasonable to reduce from |l| to a value of at least 2, but I don't believe this is reasonable at 100 or even 1000 remailers. If the amount of remailer usage increases to the point where > 20% of email traffic goes through remailers it may become feasible to lower this limit, but probably unnecessary because this scaling would result in lowered delays as a matter of recomputation. What is surprising is that this can be automatically calculated in a rather interesting way. If each still maintains l it is entirely possible for a remailer to create a message pool of size |l| and when a new message arrives if the pool is full randomly select 1 entry to be flushed towards it's destination _prior_ to the insertion of the new message, with an autoflush happening every sqrt(|l|) hours (perhaps by insertion of null message). This would cause a ripple effect each time a message was sent which could be seen as a problem by the uninitiated because there would be a decided pattern of travel with each message entering the system causing activity along a random walk. To an amateur this would appear to be a flaw in the system, except that the message being sent by the ith node is not the message sent by the i-1th node, so the risk is non-existent, and since the average path length is going to be k=2((|l|-1)/|l|), and the random walk is going to choose from |l|^k paths, which we can approximate by |l|^2 this offers a sufficient growth rate to block tracing. If this growth rate is unacceptable we can also add a minimumHops value to the protocol increasing the number of paths to |l|^minimumHops + |l|^2, minimumHops should be chosen to be a suitable number, based on current assumptions I would recommend minimumHops = logbase|l|(2^128), making the |l|^2 only a footnote as the total would be greater than 2^128 giving an enormous difficulty in even selecting a duplicate path. Mitigating factors are present however, because each message can only exist in one of |l| locations, so the maximum difficulty in guessing is still bounded in that fashion, leaving the reasonable values for minimumHops at around 10 for a 100 node network. Joe From georgemw at speakeasy.net Wed Aug 8 17:47:12 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:47:12 -0700 Subject: No fault antitrust In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010808130744.00a9af58@pop3.lvcm.com> References: <3B7132F5.26079.1057795@localhost> Message-ID: <3B717B20.10031.21F5DD0@localhost> On 8 Aug 2001, at 13:34, Steve Schear wrote: > At 12:39 PM 8/8/2001 -0700, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > >On 7 Aug 2001, at 14:48, Steve Schear wrote: > >So under this "no fault antitrust" proposal, we strip away the > >illusion that the DOJ is punishing predatory behavior and accept > >that, in fact, what is being punished is market share dominance? > > > >Interesting notion, here's why I don't think this will work: the > >single difficult point in most of these antitrust cases is > >determining what constitutes the market in question in > >the first place. For example, in the Microsoft case, Microsoft > >was held to have a monoploly on operating systems for computers > >which use intel processors. Obviously, there is no such market > >in the first place. > > I think many or most on this list, not to mention within the computer > industry, might disagree with you. > I really don't see how they could. Any meaningful definition or markets in this sense has to somehow be based on the function of the product, not the fact that it happens to invorporate a specific brand of third party hardware. I'm not disputing that Microsoft had a monoply BTW. I think it's a perfectly reasonable position that Apple's competition is sufficiently meager to say that Microsoft has an effective monoply on personal computer operating systems. I'm just saying that refusing to consider it because it gets its cpus from a different vendor was completely fucked up reasoning on the part of the judge. > >The other possible advantage of allegedly punishing companies > >for actually engaging in unethical actions rather than merely > >for getting too large a market share is the (admittedly unlikely) > >psossibility that in some cases the claims might be true. > > > >For example, consider a hypothetical case in which, due to > >economies of scale or whatever, that there really only ought to > >be one supplier of a given product. > > No. Though my readings in antitrust have led me to the conclusion that > there are few industries in which greater than 50% of market share are > required for sufficient economies of scale. One that comes to mind is > commercial aircraft. > Yeah, I understand that, that's why I added the "or whatever", maybe I should have left out the "economies of scale" part. But the point is, what exactly is the goal? I mean, getting back to Microsoft, establishing that they had a monopoly was a necessary preliminary, but allegedly what the really did wrong was to unethically use their OS monopoly to obtain an unfair advantage in the browser market. Now, if we say, "yeah, but that's all bullshit, it's the monopoly itself that's the problem", OK fine. But if we pretend to believe the claim that the behavior we wish to discourage is msft using its monoply in OS to obtain advantages in other markets, well, obviously, any sanctions based on market share alone can't be expected to acheive this. > >Would forcing that company to > >raise its prices until its market share falls to approved levels really > >be to anyone's benefit? > > It might if I get to have choices which would otherwise be foreclosed once > one company reaches a "friction free" point in that industry. > > steve > I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Who can say what possible choices you might have in the future, and when those possibilities might be foreclosed? If AMD died off, Intel might not have quite as strong an incentive as they do now to keep coming up with improved chips, but they'd still have a strong incentive, because much of their sales come from people upgrading their systems from an old Intel CPU to a new one. (Or buying a whole new Intel CPU system to replace the old one). This is even truer in the software industry; square cut or pear shaped, programs never lose their shape, programs are a girls best friend I mean forever. Oh, one other thing I just thought of. I'm not comfortable with the idea that trademarks are priviledges that can be revoked. It seems to me that a trademark essentially is a way of attaching a reputation for quality to a product, and that "revoking" the trademark and allowing any random bozo to use it is essentially defrauding the consumer. George From cryptomjs at eudoramail.com Wed Aug 8 17:54:25 2001 From: cryptomjs at eudoramail.com (Mark Saarelainen) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 17:54:25 -0700 Subject: IP: FBI gets cash to spend on anti-encryption research (fwd) Message-ID: I believe that it is criminal the FBI to try to break my business communications. I encourage all persons around the world to use the strongest encryption possible. I am just an ordinary man who has gone through some extra-ordinary experiences in the past few years. Markku J. Saarelainen P.S. I recently sent my message to most representatives of the U.S. government in the Senate and Congress. I may start my political lobbying and influence program soon. P.S. The FBI is indeed criminally involved in spying on many international enterprises and organizations. One fax from one entity to another may cost millions if not protected with the storngest encryption possible. Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 8 17:55:52 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:55:52 -0700 Subject: No fault antitrust In-Reply-To: <3B717B20.10031.21F5DD0@localhost> Message-ID: <200108090056.f790u7505077@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 05:47 PM, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > I'm not disputing that Microsoft had a monoply BTW. I think it's > a perfectly reasonable position that Apple's competition is > sufficiently meager to say that Microsoft has an effective monoply > on personal computer operating systems. I'm just saying that > refusing to consider it because it gets its cpus from a different > vendor was completely fucked up reasoning on the part of the judge. Anyone who doesn't wish to use Microsoft operating systems is perfectly free to use the Macintosh OS, as I do, or one of the many flavors or Linux, or one of the three flavors of BSD, or to buy a machine running Solaris, or AmigaDOS, or whatever. The fact that most of the sheeple pick Windows is not a criminal act by Microsoft. > I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Who can say what > possible choices you might have in the future, and when those > possibilities might be foreclosed? If AMD died off, Intel might > not have quite as strong an incentive as they do now to keep > coming up with improved chips, but they'd still have a strong > incentive, because much of their sales come from people > upgrading their systems from an old Intel CPU to a new one. > (Or buying a whole new Intel CPU system to replace the old one). > This is even truer in the software industry; square cut or pear > shaped, programs never lose their shape, programs are a girls > best friend I mean forever. I happen to know a _lot_ about Intel, for historical reasons, and I can tell you that Intel is in a vastly stronger "monopoly position" than Microsoft is. Lots of reasons. I can write a short article explaining why if there's sufficient real interest. Do I argue that Intel should be sanctioned? Far from it. In fact, I argue that anyone who tries to interfere in Intel's ability to sell products has earned killing. > > Oh, one other thing I just thought of. I'm not comfortable with > the idea that trademarks are priviledges that can be revoked. It > seems to me that a trademark essentially is a way of attaching > a reputation for quality to a product, and that "revoking" the > trademark and allowing any random bozo to use it is > essentially defrauding the consumer. Nonsense. --Tim May From JonathanW at gbgcorp.com Wed Aug 8 18:13:12 2001 From: JonathanW at gbgcorp.com (Jonathan Wienke) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:13:12 -0700 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages Message-ID: <91A43FE1FA9BD411A8D200D0B785C15E0677A5@MISSERVER> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 1717 bytes Desc: not available URL: From DaiShogun at bogonflux.net Wed Aug 8 18:45:24 2001 From: DaiShogun at bogonflux.net (DS) Date: 8 Aug 2001 18:45:24 -0700 Subject: none Message-ID: <20010809014524.11177.cpmta@c011.snv.cp.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 8 17:05:11 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:05:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops In-Reply-To: <70747ffc994593392d662aeac0532bf3@dizum.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote: > My studies show about 1 chance in 20 that any particular running > remailer will drop a message. This is based on sending a bunch of > messages through chains of remailers of varying length and seeing how > many arrive in a day or so, and then calculating the average > probability. These are not the lame remailers, either, these are the > cream of the crop, based on various performance reports. > > Note that in a chain of twenty remailers this causes many messages to > be dropped. Even if we achieve a reliability rate of 1 in 100,000, > this means about 1 in 5000 messages will be lost through a chain of 20 > remailers - usable. > > For some reason remailer culture has accepted message drops as normal. > They aren't normal. There isn't any reason why a remailer should be > any less reliable than a mail server. I estimate mail servers are far > more reliable than 1 loss in 100,000 messages. Consider how few messages get lost in the CDR. The extra mix technology shouldn't inject any randomness in message processing. You should drop messages measured in the handful per year max. The next major question is to determine where the drops are happening. Inbound, outbound, inter-remailer, intra-remailer? One aspect of this, assuming the remailers are under attack and that is the hypothesis we are going to assume, is that we need to be able to inject traffic into the remailer stream anonymously. Otherwise Mallet get's wise to what is going on and starts playing us. If at all possible all measurements should be made anonymously and as stealthily as possible. Q: How to inject traffic into the remailer network anonymously? Q: How do we measure the input/output flow without collusion of the operator? Q: Where are the computing resources to munge resulting flood of data over at least a few weeks time period. How do we hide this 'extra' flow of data? It represents an opportunity for incidental monitoring due to load usage. Q: How do we munge the data? What are we trying to 'fit'? Q: Once we have the data and can (dis)prove the hypothesis, then what? -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Your.Internet.Serverice.Provider at toad.com Wed Aug 8 15:12:40 2001 From: Your.Internet.Serverice.Provider at toad.com (Your.Internet.Serverice.Provider at toad.com) Date: 08 Aug 2001 19:12:40 -0300 Subject: 56k Dialup Access For $11.99 A Month!! Message-ID: <200108090004.RAA15659@toad.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- (This safeguard is not inserted when using the registered version) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- (This safeguard is not inserted when using the registered version) -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5066 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hseaver at ameritech.net Wed Aug 8 17:37:48 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 19:37:48 -0500 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages References: Message-ID: <3B71DB20.FC5631E4@ameritech.net> phelix at vallnet.com wrote: > > Some discs disable the FF button and the menu button. You can still skip > the ads, but you have to skip each ad individually (with the chapter skip > button). I recall usenet discussions citing 6 - 8 ads at the beginning of > some discs. I've not had that happen with a single one so far (and as I said, I've watched quite a few every week for the last two years or so) -- I wonder if it only works with standalone DVD players, or, if on computer DVD's, if its a windoze thing, and since I'm using a Mac for that, it doesn't work, just like other windoze things that they put on some DVD's don't work -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 16:52:31 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:52:31 -0400 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <3B70B957.63D2C2B@ameritech.net>; from hseaver@ameritech.net on Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:00:25PM -0500 References: <3B70B957.63D2C2B@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <20010808195231.A23427@cluebot.com> But he asked for info on the "national security" aspects of the highly classified surveillance technique under seal. Defense attys don't get to see it. See my wired.com article. -Declan On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:00:25PM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: > The judge in the Scarfo. case just ordered the feebs to reveal how > they got the evidence, full details. > > http://www.go2net.com/headlines/politics/20010807/347286.html > > -- > Harmon Seaver, MLIS > CyberShamanix > Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com > Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net > http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 16:54:20 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:54:20 -0400 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <3B70CD1C.73359D93@ameritech.net>; from hseaver@ameritech.net on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:24:47AM -0500 References: <3B70CD1C.73359D93@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <20010808195420.B23427@cluebot.com> We've covered this on Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/p-00872.html http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=cesa -Declan On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:24:47AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: > Interesting -- where did I get the idea that warrants for > "surreptitious entry" were only allowd for cases of national security. I > thought Reno was trying to get Congress to pass legalizing this, but was > turned down. > > > -- > Harmon Seaver, MLIS > CyberShamanix > Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com > Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net > http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 16:56:36 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:56:36 -0400 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:59:55AM -0700 References: <3B70CD1C.73359D93@ameritech.net> <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010808195636.C23427@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:59:55AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > So much for the Fourth Amendment, which was designed to protect against > precisely this kind of police and state snooping. When a scrap of paper, > issued in secret, enables the king's men to wander through a house, the > "secure in one's papers and possessions" right has become moot. Yeah. I was in the courtroom in Newark last week for the hearing, and this wasn't a topic at all. The judge didn't care about the secret entry, just wanted to learn more about how the bug worked. -Declan From aimee.farr at pobox.com Wed Aug 8 17:58:59 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:58:59 -0500 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <3B70CD1C.73359D93@ameritech.net> Message-ID: Harmon wrote: > Interesting -- where did I get the idea that warrants for > "surreptitious entry" were only allowd for cases of national security. I > thought Reno was trying to get Congress to pass legalizing this, but was > turned down. > SURREPTITIOUS ENTRY WARRANTS. Surreptitious entry warrants for silent video surveillance (outside of Title I's "oral, wire or electronic communication") were approved in United States v. Torres, 751 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1984). Defendants argued that secret video surveillance was a 1984 Orwellian "telescreen" - and unconstitutional pursuant to the fourth amendment. They lost. Defendants argued the warrant authorizing the search did not satisfy the particularization requirements of the fourth amendment. They lost. The Judge Posner held the warrant satisfied Title III's 2518, and since those requirements "related" to the constitutional requirements, the fourth amendment was satisfied. Courts have adopted Torres. The bottom line on video surveillance is that the government is required to show that "normal investigative techniques...reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried." Most courts still view video surveillance as outside of the ECPA. Judge Posner said, "There is no right to be let alone while assembling bombs in safe houses." (Later courts extended this to all Title I offenses.) The requirements that emerge from the Torres line are: (1) probable cause in respect to the person and criminal offense; (2) particular description in the court order of the place and things that are to be viewed; (3) minimization of the recording activities not related to the crime under investigation; (4) that normal investigative techniques have failed in the sense that they are unlikely to be successful or appear too dangerous; (5) that the period of the surveillance be limited to that time necessary to achieve the objective of the search or no longer than 30 days. I find Torres analogous, and it is an example of how courts have considered novel technologies and devices under Title I of the ECPA or "Title III." [FN1] GENERAL SEARCH/MINIMIZATION? The minimization requirements of 2518(5) and the fourth amendments prohibition on a "general search" were gutted in Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (1978), which rejected the view that monitors had to use good faith efforts to minimize the surveillance of non-pertinent conversational content. Scott factors: (1) the nature of the offense; (2) the type and location of the device; (3) the nature of the non-pertinent conversations. 2510 INTERCEPTION? Under Title I analysis the question is if there is an "intercept." See Steve Jackson Games (email wasn't "in flight.") The government basically contends they didn't get anything "in flight," as part of the *contemporaneous* requirement. (And, what if they did? There is no suppression remedy for electronic communications.) SJG is mentioned in Scarfo discussions, and SJG is heavily criticized for it's circumventional nature since the ECPA was meant to extend protection to electronic communications. However, the possibility of the physical seizure of equipment was likely considered by congress in 1986. (Were keystroke loggers?) Furthermore, all the cases cited for the government's proposition in email, voicemail, etc. are basically SJG - things that congress had knowledge of when they wrote the law. Mostly before/after cases. A keystroke logger is a technical circumvention. If upheld, that is a floodgate to eviscerate the protections afforded us under the ECPA and congressional intent by outpacing what the law has had the opportunity to consider. INTERSTATE NEXUS? They also changed Title III with the ECPA to address private carriers and in-house private systems because THEY AFFECT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE (added clause under ECPA). (Previously, in house systems were exempt from "wire communications," by "common carrier" language, and analyzed under the "oral" provisions.) Today, in a like manner, "electronic communication" includes any transfer.... transmitted by a ....SYSTEM...that _affects interstate or foreign commerce_. See 2510(12). This was within one computer, is that an "electronic communications system" 2510(14)? If so, the government says there is no interstate commerce connection between your keyboard and your computer. The addition of 'interstate commerce' clause is often cited for the proposition that Congress meant to *extend* protection to private systems. (And a whole slew of cases exempting private systems under Title I now have no precedential value.) However, the government cited a passage in the congressional record to the contrary in regard to wire communications, but I'm uncertain of the context of the specific testimony. I don't think the same considerations apply to electronic communications. A STAND-ALONE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. The Government argues that based on congressional testimony related to wire communications (think telephone and aural), the definition of electronic communications do not include transmissions in one piece of equipment (interstate nexus). The attached phone recorder hardware question, somewhat analogous under wire communications, was settled by the "aural *or other*" addition to ECPA for the definition of "intercept." (Previously, it had to an "aural acquisition" to be an intercept.) Now, Title I treats nonmonitored recording as an interception. Before, courts differed as to whether it was an "aural acquisition" (Turk, 5th Cir.), or a "mere accessory designed to preserve the contents of the communication" (United States v. Harpel, 493 F.2d 346, 350 (10th Cir.1974). I find that analogous as to congressional intent. ~Aimee 1. Title III was 1968. Today we have Title I, Title II & Title III of the ECPA. The former Title III is Title I of the ECPA. Some courts refer to Title I was the Wiretap Act and Title II as the Stored Communications Act. Everybody still calls it "Title III." From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 8 17:06:34 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 20:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia Message-ID: On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 02:28 PM, Faustine wrote: > Lots of interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications, I'm > sure... > Massively Parallel Computational Research Laboratory > http://www.cs.sandia.gov/ >Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting >cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher talk about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last Thursday. Hearsay and hot air? Probably; nothing that merits repeating. But it's hardly a dead issue. >(The "challenges" broken by a couple of our own list members over the >past several years were all weak ciphers by modern standards, or had key >lengths way below even the recommended lengths of the day. Increasing >the key lengths by just several bits ups the work factor by a factor of >ten or so. Increasing it to recommended levels ups the work factor to >the level of "not all the computers that will ever be built in all of >the galaxies of the universe" will be able to brute-force a crack.) We've all heard that line before, but I still don't think it's too far- fetched to assume that anyone who does work in this area might appreciate 50 megs of free software to create his own supercomputer. >There are indeed some cryptographic uses for big computers, but not much >of real interest here. Some voice- and traffic-analysis stuff, but not >cracking modern ciphers. You never know what might come from putting that kind of computational power in the hands of people here. Create, break, do whatever you want. ~Faustine. From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 17:10:52 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 20:10:52 -0400 Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108081806.f78I6L500976@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 11:06:05AM -0700 References: <200108081806.f78I6L500976@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010808201052.D23427@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 11:06:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > (Ads could be tied-in to the content, with some light crypto or copright > protection. A "circumvention" of this liight crypto could be a DMCA > violation. I would not be surprised to see this already impicated in the > DVD cases: that 5 minute period of trailors that cannot be > fast-forwarded past...it's probably a violation of the DMCA to build > devices which circumvent the copyright holder's plans and intents.) This came up in the DeCSS trial. To the judge, circumvention was circumvention. -Declan From honig at sprynet.com Wed Aug 8 20:11:03 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:11:03 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: References: <20010808202854.29704.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010808201103.008f2e90@pop.sprynet.com> At 01:56 PM 8/8/01 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the presumption >that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research >that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He >doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just >shoot first and ask questions later. > Indeed, I intercepted a report today of a drunk 50+ year old man getting shotgunned once in the chest for mistaking a 70+ year old man's condo for his own. Mr. 50+ died on the scene, of course. Both families are distraught. From pth at ibuc.com Wed Aug 8 20:26:58 2001 From: pth at ibuc.com (Paul Harrison) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:26:58 -0700 Subject: Remailer Phases References: <884458943c960d0103eb7ff180524825@remailer.xganon.com> Message-ID: <3B720301.487D1607@ibuc.com> Anonymous wrote: >> And "we" (whoever that is) need traffic, traffic, traffic. A good >> mixmaster net importantly includes lots of source address and exit >> addresses. [...] > >Sounds like a good reason to encrypt and distribute the list through >the mixmaster network. hmmm. I would guess that if the list program prepended [cypherpunks] to every subject, then peoples could still filter and organize posts even though they arrived from random exit points. One listop could do this, and if it was too much of a pain people could resubscribe from a different CDR node. It might also provide interesting metrics for both goodguys and badguys (dropped messages, latency, etc. could all be measured against a subscription to a non-mixed CDR node. What are the traffic analysis implications? From drevil at sidereal.kz Wed Aug 8 13:28:54 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 8 Aug 2001 20:28:54 -0000 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com> (message from Tim May on Wed, 8 Aug 2001 08:59:55 -0700) References: <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010808202854.29704.qmail@sidereal.kz> > 2) What happens in these breaking-and-entering raids if the homeowner > surprises the burglar and kills him? Is a homeowner supposed to somehow > know that the person sneaking around his home has a secret warrant > signed by a secret judge in a secret courtroom? Interesting legal question there, Tim. IANAL, but I would imagine that the "reasonable man" test might be the most important factor. That, and the prejudices of the court. I'm sure that those of us who AAL could give a better answer. However, I don't think it would ever come up. Obviously, the FBI knows that an operation like this would be highly dangerous, for both their agents and the suspect, if your scenario above ever happened. They have plenty of resources. I imagine that they do surveillance on the place and the person quite extensively before they go in. They know that the suspect is out of town, or at work, or with his mistress when their breaking-and-entering team is working. They probably also have a team watching the suspect/homeowner while their other team is in the residence. If the surveillance team sees that the suspect is suddenly returning home, they can alert the breaking-and-entering team to get the hell out. I imagine that the surveillance team would do whatever is necessary to make sure that the homeowner/suspect doesn't get back while the breaking-and-entering team is in: they could have a car accident with him, have a local cop pull him over and take plenty of time writing the ticket, they could have a beautiful woman strike up a conversation with him, many possibilities. I'm sure they have a list of options ready to go in this scenario. So I think the risk is very low, and I'm sure they play it conservatively on these types of operations. So don't worry about finding any of these guys in your house, because you won't! But if you do, offer them a beer! They word hard. Oh wait, they're probably Mormons. Offer them a lemonade to be on the safe side. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Wed Aug 8 18:31:18 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 20:31:18 -0500 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010808171238.03201b10@192.168.1.2> Message-ID: Somebody asked: > >>1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of > >>whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is > it possible > >>that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every warrant > >>discussed in open testimony? Greg (I think) wrote: > >Yes. There is a time limit for when they should be disclosed if > they don't > >lead to a prosecution - that time limit can be extended by a > judge, if the > >agents think they need more time to develop a case. I don't believe the > >(federal) law allows for taps to go undisclosed forever, but I > believe it > >happens anyway. Since the undisclosed taps aren't likely to be > the focus of > >litigation, there's no effective check on that practice. The general identification and notice requirements of Title I are in Section 2518. 2518 delineates the procedures for applying for a court approved interception of wire or oral communications, the content of applications, the order(s) and the notice that must be sent after the fact to those persons whose conversations were intercepted. Additionally, 2518(10)(a) gives a right to suppress evidence under specified circumstances. The inventory and notice requirement of 2518(8)(d) entitles only those persons who were named in the court order to receive notice and inventory of the wire tap as a matter of right. Notice to all other persons, even though their conversations were overheard and they were identifiable is left to judicial discretion. The prosecutor has the duty to classify all those whose conversations have been intercepted and transmit this to the judge. If the judge wants more information, the judge can ask for it so as to fulfill his discretionary notice role. In United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 (1974), 2518(1)(b)(iv) was interpreted to mean that the only persons that must be named in a Title I application are those the government has probable cause to believe are involved in a criminal activity and will be using the target phone. So now they don't really have to investigate other parties known to be using the phone to see if they have probable cause for them or not. (This is "the dragnet effect.") Say you have a violation of the notice and inventory provision....the case law tells you that the courts have made distinctions between violations that are "central and substantive" - and those that are not (for the purpose of a motion to suppress). In United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (1977), the court stated in dictum that the international failure to name individuals for the purpose of hiding a lack of probable cause would be substantial. Yet Donovan's footnotes have led lower courts to require the violation of the notice and identification provisions be INTENTIONAL AND PREJUDICIAL to the defendant to render it subject to a motion to suppress. It seems if the defendant has ANY notice of whatever form - there is no prejudice. Indeed, no effective check. ~Aimee From decoy at iki.fi Wed Aug 8 10:41:11 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 20:41:11 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Advertisements on Web Pages In-Reply-To: <200108071649.f77GnO524777@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >(I'm surprised no one has urged me to use Lynx. Is it still being used?) Oh yes. If you can't use it with Lynx, it's probably low on content. Though I've been meaning to change to one of the www modes on top of Emacs. I hear some of them handle Unicode better than Lynx. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 18:11:41 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:11:41 -0400 Subject: IP: FBI gets cash to spend on anti-encryption research (fwd) In-Reply-To: ; from cryptomjs@eudoramail.com on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:54:25PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010808211141.A26557@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:54:25PM -0700, Mark Saarelainen wrote: > I believe that it is criminal the FBI to try to break my business communications. > > I encourage all persons around the world to use the strongest encryption possible. > > I am just an ordinary man who has gone through some extra-ordinary experiences in the past few years. > > Markku J. Saarelainen > > P.S. I recently sent my message to most representatives of the U.S. government in the Senate and Congress. I may start my political lobbying and influence program soon. Good luck! Let us know what you hear back! -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 18:14:17 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:14:17 -0400 Subject: No fault antitrust In-Reply-To: <200108090056.f790u7505077@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:55:52PM -0700 References: <3B717B20.10031.21F5DD0@localhost> <200108090056.f790u7505077@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010808211417.B26557@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:55:52PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Do I argue that Intel should be sanctioned? Far from it. In fact, I > argue that anyone who tries to interfere in Intel's ability to sell > products has earned killing. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17513.html http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18324.html -Declan From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 8 19:47:44 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 21:47:44 -0500 Subject: The Register - FBI chief Mueller lied to Senate about key-logging Message-ID: <3B71F9D0.E3833C00@ssz.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20894.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 8 19:49:42 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 21:49:42 -0500 Subject: Security Firms Call for Video-Surveillance Law Message-ID: <3B71FA46.F8D958FE@ssz.com> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20010808/pl/tech_privacy_surveillance_dc_1.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 19:01:57 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:01:57 -0400 Subject: Cypherpunks, pay per use remailers, and the good ol' days In-Reply-To: <200108072340.f77Nee527511@slack.lne.com> References: <3B7071A5.51D20420@ibuc.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010808210618.0252daa0@mail.well.com> At 04:40 PM 8/7/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >I disagree, slightly. The same old "improvements" are still not >implemented. Notably, pay-for-use remailers. Let me play devil's advocate here and say I'm not sure that the existence of PPU remailers would change much. First, the current state of remailers may be enough for many cypherpunks-interesting projects that do not quite reach the national-security-threat level. Second, it's not clear that even if the improvement existed, there would be sufficient market demand for the service to keep the operators interested in providing continued for-fee operation. (There's overhead involved in just setting up such a service that the activists currently running no-charge remailers don't have.) Other improvements such as better user interface may be necessary. Third, there already is a cousin of a pay-per-use remailer, albeit not with the same utility as mixmaster, in the form of ZKS' Freedom application. You'd think that if there were sufficient market demand, someone would try to set up such a PPU service. It hasn't happened yet. Explanations might include market inefficiencies in the communication of user preferences to prospective remailer ops, government regulation (spoilation alert!), lack of reasonable payment structure. Yet some form of PPU remailer could exist today: A remailer would find a cookie and an encrypted-to-PPU-public-key credit card in the body of the message it receives. It would then debit a credit card for, say, $3 and award a credit to that cookie for $2.95 (5 cent per email message charge). Next time another message appeared with that cookie, that same "account" would be debited five cents. The remailer would, unless it's the entry point in the chain, not be able to contact the "account" holder for a recharge, so a client application should handle the balance accounting. The honesty of the remailer could be verified and published via the usual reputational mechanisms. Though I admit I'd be a bit hesitant to give today's remailers my credit card number. The usual objection to such a system would be that the feds would impose pressure on the banking system (or credit card companies would do it themselves) and prevent remailer ops from securing merchant accounts. That may be true, but remailers at least today aren't seen as a serious threat. They could get away with it for a while. Besides, other payment mechanisms, while not quite Chaumian, would work. I presume a similar, and perhaps less complicated, system could be crafted using egold or paypal. Peter Wayner's already using paypal, per his post this week, to sell lightly-protected content. There's always the option of sending physical dollars or 7-11 money orders to open "accounts" with remailers too. Tim says that "interest in running remailers is waning" and says it's the lack of a Clipper threat. I'm not sure that interest, as a factual point, is actually waning. The remailer-ops mailing list has received 1730 messages since February. There seem to be over a dozen to a score of well-known remailers (perhaps many more lightly-advertised ones), which I recall is about where matters were five years ago. I do of course agree interest in cypherpunks is due in part to a lack of a big, nasty threat. Any political interest group picks up in activism when its enemies are in power or actively threatening them; NOW gains members when Ashcroft is in office; the NRA got a boost under Clinton. I did note in May 2000 -- and was the first reporter to do so -- that the Council of Europe treaty requires "websites and Internet providers to collect information about their users, a rule that would potentially limit anonymous remailers" (http://www.politechbot.com/p-01136.html). But that's theoretical since the COE is still a far-off threat and doesn't have the same urgency as a House committee voting to make it a felony to manufacture or distribute unescrowed crypto (this actually happened). Tim says "the heyday" of cypherpunks was during Clipper and Zimmermann. True. But much has changed since then. People have gone off to start companies; cypherpunkly ideas are no longer new; early cypherpunkish predictions turned out not to be true, at least not yet; there are other interesting areas such as Freenet and P2P to work on; crypto is more-or-less mainstream and certainly corporate; people have peeled off from cypherpunks to join other communities that don't have the same volume of traffic; more sub-par humans seem to infest the cypherpunks list than before; prosecutions of cypherpunks subscribers may have scared off others. Right now the "crypto activism" equivalent is over in the DMCA camp, trying to "Free Dmitry." -Declan From freematt at coil.com Wed Aug 8 19:06:02 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 22:06:02 -0400 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com> References: <200108081600.f78G0D532541@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: At 8:59 AM -0700 8/8/01, Tim May wrote: >(Sandy and Black Unicorn will doubtless consider it "bellicose" to >say that if I ever find a black-clad ninja rustling around in my >house, I expect to treat him as I would treat any other such >varmint. A double tap in the center of mass. You might want to use the Mozambique drill instead- Two to the center mass and one to the head. The drill is used when two shots center mass has no discernable effect, then an aimed shot to the head is implemented. Used of course against an unlawful intruder. Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From declan at well.com Wed Aug 8 19:28:44 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 22:28:44 -0400 Subject: Cypherpunks, pay per use remailers, and the good ol' days In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010808210618.0252daa0@mail.well.com>; from declan@well.com on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 10:01:57PM -0400 References: <3B7071A5.51D20420@ibuc.com> <200108072340.f77Nee527511@slack.lne.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010808210618.0252daa0@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <20010808222844.D26557@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 10:01:57PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Yet some form of PPU remailer could exist today: A remailer would find a > cookie and an encrypted-to-PPU-public-key credit card in the body of the > message it receives. It would then debit a credit card for, say, $3 and [...] > The usual objection to such a system would be that the feds would impose > pressure on the banking system (or credit card companies would do it > themselves) and prevent remailer ops from securing merchant accounts. That > may be true, but remailers at least today aren't seen as a serious threat. > They could get away with it for a while. Thinking through this a little bit more, such a system wouldn't work well given today's technology. It would allow an attacker to know with a high degree of certainty the truename (cardname) of someone and link that with an encrypted message. By unwrapping it down the chain with subpoenas and court orders, it would be possible to get at least the last To: line if not the final text. Such a situation could be avoided by remailers that use temporary (changing by the minute, say) keys so that a court order wouldn't be able to succeed in the same way as above. But then that has the problem of getting the keys to the users of the remailer -- not a terribly difficult thing; given a small # of remailers, all could be queried in a second or two. A website that collated the temporary keys (signed by a permanent one) would be a nice service. Naturally you'd have to trust that at least one remailer was honest -- but you already do that, right? -Declan From drevil at sidereal.kz Wed Aug 8 16:03:03 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 8 Aug 2001 23:03:03 -0000 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20010808230303.28436.qmail@sidereal.kz> > I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but if it > did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the presumption Actually, now that I think about it, I think it is essentially impossible for it to ever happen. If it were to happen, it is almost certain that either the breaking-and-entering team or the suspect/homeowner or both would be injured or killed in the ensuing firefight. The FBI knows this. Having agents injured is absolutely unacceptable to them, and having suspects injured or killed is also a highly undesirable outcome for them. You can be sure that during the break-in, they would have a team watching every approach to the house. If somehow or other someone showed up to enter the house during this time, and the FBI couldn't get him distracted in some way, they would just flash their badges and arrest him before he went in. Sure, their investigation would be compromised (blown) and they would be very unhappy about that, but the alternative is guaranteed to be infinitely worse, so they would do it to cut their losses. So no, you will never walk in and surprise some FBI agents messing with your computer. Don't worry about it. > that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research > that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He > doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just > shoot first and ask questions later. > > Having said that, that is a rebutable presumption. If it can be shown that > you believed or had reason to believe the intruder was, in fact, some flavor > of cop, you cannot rely on the fear-of-death-or-great-bodily-harm > presumption. For example, if he raised his hands and you heard him say, > "Don't shoot, I'm an FBI agent," you might lose the benefit of the > presumption. (You DID hear him say it, right?) If a reasonable person found some intruders in his home, and they yelled at him, "I'm an FBI agent!", and started drawing weapons (which is what they would do), would it be reasonable for him to believe them, and comply, or to disbelieve them, and shoot back? He has less than a second (less than the time it takes to say "FBI") to make this decision, btw. I guess that's the question, and we all have our opinions about what the answer is, but ultimately the jury would have to decide what is reasonable, and a lot of their decision would be based on their judgement of the character of the shooter, and their perception of how the FBI handled themselves. Is the suspect a sleaze with a history of violence, or is he a sober, reasonable, cool-headed person with a clean record and documented training about what to do in a self-defence situation? Did the FBI make a plan that took every possible precaution to prevent this from happening, and did they have the right knowledge and equipment to complete the job quickly, or did they go in without proper preparation? The answer to those questions might be the answer to the bigger question. Looking at the bright side of this, the FBI would take extreme precautions to make sure that this situation never comes up, so don't worry about it. From norm at cimerol.com Wed Aug 8 23:04:10 2001 From: norm at cimerol.com (CheapPrints.com) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:04:10 -0700 Subject: New Web Server soon Message-ID: <200108090604.f7964A517025@rigel.cyberpass.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 627 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nobody at remailer.privacy.at Wed Aug 8 14:39:06 2001 From: nobody at remailer.privacy.at (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:39:06 +0200 Subject: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net closing Message-ID: <1f8626e96ebbe880d63873f10f3a3ed4@remailer.privacy.at> Eric Murray wrote: > I wrote the stuff below to answer someone's request for a list of > CDRs and their policies. I'd like to keep it up to date and post it > regularly. Eric Murray kicks ass. From nobody at paranoici.org Wed Aug 8 14:48:25 2001 From: nobody at paranoici.org (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:48:25 +0200 Subject: Remailer Phases Message-ID: <44eccadca7fa386b679154e037f14959@paranoici.org> An Unknown Party wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > > We need a good mixmaster net. > > > > working remailer: > > 1. Average latency less than 5 min > > Bad. See the papers done on threats of traffic analysis/spam attacks > against remailers. "Average latency" exists. What do you think it should be? a) 5 minutes b) 5 hours c) 5 days d) 5 months e) longer I like a). From dinosaur101 at eurosport.com Wed Aug 8 23:52:36 2001 From: dinosaur101 at eurosport.com (dinosaur101 at eurosport.com) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:52:36 Subject: you'll love this Message-ID: <200108090511.AAA23432@einstein.ssz.com> You already own a computer and have an internet connection. While you are online you may as well make some money right? This program really works, and while it takes some persistence anyone can do this! You can earn $50,000 or more in next the 90 days sending e-mail. Seem impossible? Read on for details; is there a catch; NO, there is no catch, just send your emails and be on your way to financial freedom. AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV : ''Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time'' THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! =============================================== Before you say ''Bull'' , please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below , to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost''. This is what one had to say: '' Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in''. Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is another testimonial: ''' this program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. One day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa ..... 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $768,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything . But like most of the people I was also a little skeptical and little worried about the legal aspect of it. So I checked it out with the U.S. Postal Service (1-800- 725 2161 = 24 hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed Legal ! I am now loving it !" Richard Templeton, Dallas, Texas. ---------------------------------------------------------------- More testimonials later but first, ****** PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE ******* $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $100,000 every 4 to 5 months legally, easily and comfortably, please read the following...then READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN and follow the simple instructions ! DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED ! The sooner you do it, the faster you start making money !!! INSTRUCTIONS: **** Order all 5 reports shown on the list below. **** For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. **** When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5 = $25.00. **** Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. **** IMPORTANT __ DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will loose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY ! ========================================================= **** Take this entire letter ( with the modified list of names) and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. **** To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1 : BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ============================================ let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.2% . Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That's = 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5. (there are over 170 million people on the internet worldwide and about 30,000 more new customers signs up everyday). THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH = $500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500+ 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000 ......... Grand Total = $555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone, or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET =================================================== Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it . Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. ___________________________ AVAILABLE REPORTS ___________________________ ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in atleast 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : ============================================== REPORT # 1 : "HOW TO MAKE$250,000 THROUGH MULTI-LEVEL SALES" Order Report # 1 from: HOT VACATIONS 59 Corliss Crescent Winnipeg, MB, Canada R2C 4S6 __________________________________________________ REPORT # 2 : ''The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net'' Order Report # 2 from : JF ENTERPRISES 356 Arthur Street Suite 2 E Freeport Harbor, NY 11520-5636 __________________________________________________ REPORT # 3 : ''The Secret to Multilevel marketing on the net'' Order Report # 3 from: Wesco Information & Distribution 1017 Ash Ave Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424 U.S.A. __________________________________________________ REPORT # 4 : ''How to become a millionaire utilizing MLM & the Net'' Order Report # 4 from: P.S. MUSIC ENT. 34 MORGAN ST. NEW ROCHELLE, NY 10805-1225 U.S.A. ___________________________________________________ REPORT # 5 : ''HOW TO SEND 1 MILLION E-MAILS FOR FREE'' Order Report # 5 from: Maria Z. BENITO'S 24 DIVISION ST. NEW ROCHELLE, NY 10801 U.S.A. ___________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your sucess: *** If you do not receive atleast 15 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. Your target should be to receive atleast 20 orders for Report # 1 within 2 - 3 weeks of your mailing to be on the safe side. Because some people will do nothing after they sent you $5 for Report # 1 due to lack of enthusiasm or lack of desire to become a millionaire by end of 2000. We suggest you continue sending e-mails until you have attained the basic goal. *** After you have received 15 - 20 orders for Report # 1, then 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive atleast 100 orders or more for Report # 2. If you did not, continue sending mails until you do. *** Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you , and the cash will continue to roll in ! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER : Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a Different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!! ______________________________________________________ FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: "" 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 ion the next few weeks and months than you have ever imagined. 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 report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails and your name will be on everyone 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 ! ************** MORE TESTIMONIALS **************** '' My name is Mitchell. My wife , Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail''. I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I ''knew'' it would'nt work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so'' on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received total $ 147,200.00 ........... all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her ''hobby''. Mitchell Wolf M.D. , Chicago, Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ '' Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to atleast get my money back''. '' I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big''. Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada ----------------------------------------------------------- '' I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.........11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks''. Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM ! If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. This message is sent in compliance of the proposed bill SECTION 301. per Section 301, Pragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618. Further transmission to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply with the word Remove in the subject line. This message is not intended for residents in the State of Washigton, screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. E N D IMPORTANT: To Be removed please send a BLANK reply to: mailto:TBackup2 at excite.ca?subject=remove From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 8 21:05:30 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 00:05:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia Message-ID: On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 05:06 PM, Faustine wrote: Tim wrote: >> Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting >> cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? > Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher > talk about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last > Thursday. > Hearsay and hot air? Probably; nothing that merits repeating. But it's > hardly a dead issue. >>And why not name who this researcher was, and why you think the cipher >>he was trying to break was Cypherpunks-interesting? Because it's impolite to attribute other people's ideas and commentary to them in a public forum if they assumed they were speaking to you informally, in confidence. Hearsay and hot air. I'm assuming you find Rijndael interesting. http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes/ (snip) > We've all heard that line before, but I still don't think it's too far- > fetched to assume that anyone who does work in this area might > appreciate 50 megs of free software to create his own supercomputer. >>Fatuous nonsense, Beowulf clusters have been out for several years. The >>hard part is getting 50 Pentiums, not the software. The idea has been around, but not the free software from Sandia. >As for "50 gigaflops," big whoop. A readily-available dual G4 machine is >rated at about 8-10 gigaflops. (Or "FLOPS," as you wish.) >>Still not interesting for cracking ciphers, in the real world. Never said it was. 50? try 512. > You never know what might come from putting that kind of computational > power in the hands of people here. Create, break, do whatever you want. >>You need to get up to speed, so to speak. 232.6 billion operations a second still looks fairly impressive to me. ~Faustine. From schear at lvcm.com Thu Aug 9 00:13:27 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:13:27 -0700 Subject: Indict Saddam Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010808235741.03cd1a98@pop3.lvcm.com> August 9, 2001 Commentary Indict Saddam By Michael Rubin. Mr. Rubin, a visiting scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently returned from nine months as a Carnegie Council fellow and visiting professor in northern Iraq's universities. Tuesday's U.S.-British air strikes against Iraq once again raise the question of why much of the international community continues to treat Saddam Hussein with kid gloves. When Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic began his campaign of ethnic cleansing in 1992, after all, Europe did not respond by expanding trade with Serbia. Quite the opposite, it ostracized Milosevic and, in 1993, succeeded in pressing the United Nations to appoint a commission of experts to investigate his crimes. The judicial process was slow, but paid dividends. It took six years to indict Milosevic, and another two years to bring him to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Lucrative Contracts Contrast that experience with the approach to Saddam, a perpetrator of much worse human-rights abuses than Milosevic. Sadly, lucrative Iraqi business contracts appear to have precluded any European effort to indict Saddam for war crimes. Russia, for example, has earned more than $1 billion from Saddam under the oil-for-food programs, and has promises of several billion dollars more in future contracts once sanctions are lifted. And in the first four years of the oil-for-food program, France won $3.5 billion in trade with Iraq. Baghdad certainly doesn't award contracts based on quality: Of six Russian ambulances ordered for the town of Halabja, for example, five broke down irreparably within a month, complained local hospital officials. So what is Saddam getting in exchange? Maybe it's the votes of at least two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council against the creation of an international court to look into the Iraqi regime's war crimes. While working as a visiting professor at the University of Sulaymani in Western-defended northern Iraq this past year, I had occasion to witness the growing involvement of Western executives in Iraq. Mohammed Douri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador, recently told a reporter, "Politics is about interests. Politics is not about morals. If the French and others will take a positive position in the Security Council, certainly they will get a benefit." http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=SB997315471358281151.djm From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 9 00:36:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 00:36:26 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B71DB0A.15148.B9E4F9@localhost> -- Faustine: > I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to > dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security as > a donut- chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone imbecile. > > Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did you > ever stop to think about who's really doing the hardcore > research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? To judge by their most recent crypto ballsup, some donut chomping incompetents. > And did you ever think that they may have decided it's in their > best interest to let otherwise informed and intelligent people > like you laugh them off as third-rate and underfunded? I would never imagine a government department to be underfunded. James A. Donald: > > Similarly consider the CIA, whose assessments of the Soviet > > Union were consistently less accurate than my own. > Not everyone who wrote assessments for CIA got them past the > politicized review of deputy director Gates. As you may know, > the whole culture in the 80s was characterized by a deep rift > between two warring factions who literally referred to each > other as "knuckledraggers" and "commie symps." If the symps had > the upper hand instead of the knuckledraggers under Casey, > there's not a doubt in my mind you would have seen an entirely > different kind of intelligence product. The commie symps favored the "alliance for progress", which shows they were even further out of contact with reality than the knuckledraggers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG pwsZCPD6q7113H400Rs9K5JCzrrsWPOl6bI7Tvnp 4E235p2QsARNd3MJytLRqPWA6e1tPeFgkVTDyQmUW From star at hotmail.com Thu Aug 9 01:44:11 2001 From: star at hotmail.com (star at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:44:11 -0800 Subject: cypherpunks-unedited your a winner new site Message-ID: <4ldh1u3oiw2.mdgv0s44tf2v5p@pcxi.aol.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 939 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim_windle at eudoramail.com Wed Aug 8 21:50:55 2001 From: jim_windle at eudoramail.com (Jim Windle) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:50:55 -0400 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 00:05:30 Faustine wrote: > > >The idea has been around, but not the free software from Sandia. > > The idea has been around and so has software and not just from Sandia. The Scyld cluster software costs $2 for non-commercial use and is widely used. The technology is advancing very quickly, for instance Avalon at LANL came in 113 on the Top500 in 11/98 at 48 gigaflops. Systems with say 64 Athlon processors and doing roughly 75-80 gigaflops are available pre-built or can be and are constructed by a wide variety of universities and corporations (check out the Beowulf list to get an idea of the range of applications and the number of large clusters out there). There are many application of cypherpunk-interest for this sort of cheap computing power. Unfortunately crypto probably isn't one of them. It is far easier to increase the size of the key than to scale up the processing power in a meaningful way. Until far more efficient factoring algorithms are found the math will insure this remains the case. > >Never said it was. 50? try 512. > >> You never know what might come from putting that kind of computational >> power in the hands of people here. Create, break, do whatever you want. > The technology is potentially revolutionary in many areas of interest to cypherpunks but factoring large numbers is so hard and it is so easy to increase the size of keys that crypto will easily stay ahead of the Beowulf technology. Now if someone had a working quantum computer that might be a different story. Jim Windle Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From nobody at dizum.com Wed Aug 8 16:40:15 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 01:40:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops Message-ID: <70747ffc994593392d662aeac0532bf3@dizum.com> My studies show about 1 chance in 20 that any particular running remailer will drop a message. This is based on sending a bunch of messages through chains of remailers of varying length and seeing how many arrive in a day or so, and then calculating the average probability. These are not the lame remailers, either, these are the cream of the crop, based on various performance reports. Note that in a chain of twenty remailers this causes many messages to be dropped. Even if we achieve a reliability rate of 1 in 100,000, this means about 1 in 5000 messages will be lost through a chain of 20 remailers - usable. For some reason remailer culture has accepted message drops as normal. They aren't normal. There isn't any reason why a remailer should be any less reliable than a mail server. I estimate mail servers are far more reliable than 1 loss in 100,000 messages. One possibility is that some of my tests went through remailers that are just down. This hasn't been ruled out beyond any reasonable doubt, but it appears that the drops are occuring in remailers which are still carrying traffic. I did an extensive series of tests with an internal mixmaster network running Mixmaster 2.0.3. I had to fool around with it, but I was able to run many hundreds of messages through chains of 20 hops without a single message drop. The core software appears to be solid (unless bugs have been introduced into more recent releases ;-), but the setup needs to be tweaked. The practice of putting something like this into .forward is a problem: "|/usr9/loki/Devel/Mix/mixmaster -R >> /usr/spool/mail/username" If too many messages come in at once this brings a machine to its knees because it runs too many mixmaster processes at once. This feeds on itself because as more processes run, it takes longer for each one to complete. There may also be a bug in mixmaster which is only expressed when many mixmaster processes simultaneously try to queue a message. (FYI, this also creates an easy DoS attack on a mixmaster node. Just send the node a bunch of messages which loop back into itself over and over again. This should rapidly cause sendmail to spawn many mixmaster processes and lock up the machine. I haven't tried this on anybody else's mixmaster node.) The solution is to have a small program which puts incoming messages into a spool file. I've enclosed the perl script I used, which comes with no guarantees and hasn't been tested all that much. The script copies the message into a file in the spool directory starting with "temp". Then it moves it to a file starting with "spool". The reason for the move is to guarantee that all "spool" files are complete messages. The time of creation is encoded in the filename so a processing program can get the files in order of arrival. The other pieces needed are a small perl script which monitors the spool directory and calls mixmaster to queue up each file and another process which calls mixmaster repeatedly to process the queued messages. This setup causes no more than two mixmaster processes to run at a time and is more robust. Would somebody mind polling the remailer operators to see how many are running mixmaster directly from .forward? I suspect this is most of the problem. If it isn't, we need to eliminate it before pursuing the next suspect. ---cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here------cut here--- #!/usr/bin/perl -w # This code is in the public domain. # Put in a .forward file. Spools mail into a directory for processing # by something else. require 5; use strict; use English; my(@pwvals) = getpwuid($UID); my($homedir) = $pwvals[7]; my($spooldir) = "$homedir/spool"; die "Home directory doesn't exist." if ! -e $homedir; die "Home directory isn't a directory." if ! -d $homedir; die "$spooldir doesn't exist." if ! -e $spooldir; die "$spooldir is not a directory." if ! -d $spooldir; my($now) = time; my($now_string); if( length($now) < 12 ) { $now_string = ('0' x (12 - length($now))) . $now; } my($temppath) = "$spooldir/temp.$now_string.$$"; die "Amazingly, $temppath already exists." if -e $temppath; open(SPOOLFILE, ">$temppath") or die "Could not open $temppath for writing.\n"; while(<>) { print SPOOLFILE $_; } close(SPOOLFILE); my($spoolpath) = "$spooldir/spool.$now_string.$$"; die "Amazingly, $spoolpath already exists." if -e $spoolpath; if( ! rename $temppath, $spoolpath ) { die "Could not rename $temppath to $spoolpath."; } # Let sendmail know everything is fine. exit(0); From bill.stewart at pobox.com Thu Aug 9 02:07:57 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 02:07:57 -0700 Subject: ANNOUNCE CYPHERPUNKS Saturday, Aug 11, 1-5pm, Stanford Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010809020324.02f5a100@idiom.com> SF Bay Area Cypherpunks August 2001 Physical Meeting Announcement General Info DATE: Saturday 11 August 2001 TIME: 1:00 - 5:00 PM (Pacific Time) PLACE: Tressider Student Union Courtyard, Stanford University Campus Palo Alto, California, USA

Agenda

"Our agenda is a widely-held secret." As usual, this is an Open Meeting on US Soil, and everyone's invited. Some events and topics that have been happening recently include Sklyarov, Defcon, Worms From The Borg, and New FBI directors. PGP is ten years old! Several of us were at Phil Z's talk. The 802.11 WEP Wireless Encryption Protocol has been cracked even more thoroughly. The Fedz couldn't crack Nicky Scarfo's PGP key, but they could steal his passphrase by cracking his computer. Location The Stanford meeting location will be familiar to those who've been to our outdoor summer meetings before, but for those who haven't been, it's on the Stanford University campus (in Palo Alto, California), at the end of Santa Theresa, at the tables outside Tressider Union, just west of Dinkelspiel Auditorium. We meet at the tables on the West side of the building, inside the horseshoe "U" formed by the Tresidder building. Ask anyone on campus where "Tresidder" or the "Student Union" is and they'll help you find it. If the weather is bad, we'll meet inside. Food and beverages are available at the cafe inside Tresidder. Location Maps: http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/search_map.html?keyword=&ACADEMIC=Tresidder+Union Overview http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/stanford_zoom_map.html?234,312 (zoomed detail view): http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/campus_map.pdf Printable Stanford Map (407k). GPS Coordinates: 37d23:40 N 122d04:49 W If you get lost on the way, you can try calling: +1.415.307.7119 (Bill) If you have questions, comments or last-minute agenda requests, please contact the meeting organizers:
Bill Stewart bill.stewart at pobox.com
Dave Del Torto ddt at cryptorights.org From FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com Thu Aug 9 01:25:58 2001 From: FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com (Your Membership Newsletter) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:25:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your Membership Exchange, #445 Message-ID: <20010809082558.CB51E3AEA5@rovdb001.roving.com> Your Membership Exchange, Issue #445 (August 9, 2001) ______________________________________________________ Your Membership Daily Exchange >>>>>>>>>>> Issue #445 <> 08-09-01 <<<<<<<<<<<< Your place to exchange ideas, ask questions, swap links, and share your skills! ______________________________________________________ Removal/Unsubscribe instructions are included at the bottom for members who do not wish to receive additional issues of this publication. ______________________________________________________ You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com ______________________________________________________ Today's Special Announcement: THE STARTLING TRUTH ABOUT BRANDING!! ALL the BIG Internet Marketing 'Stars' have one thing in common - they make their fortunes because they've taken the time to Brand NOT just their products, but Themselves!! Rick Beneteau's new book teaches you how, and he also asked many of the top Internet personalities to share their success secrets with you. Click here to begin Branding YOU and Breaking the Bank!! http://www.roibot.com/w.cgi?R23376_zbb ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ >> Q & A ANSWERS: - What does CPM mean? L. Harpf: Definition and explanation of CPM - Info on using Linux operation system? A. Lloyd-Rees: Linux users receive a lot of assistance >> MEMBER SHOWCASES >> MEMBER *REVIEWS* - Sites to Review: #144, #145, #146 & #147! - Site #143 Reviewed! ______________________________________________________ >>>>>> QUESTIONS & ANSWERS <<<<<< Submit your questions & answers to MyInput at AEOpublishing.com ANSWERS: From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 9 04:51:01 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:51:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Cypherpunks, pay per use remailers, and the good ol' days In-Reply-To: <20010808222844.D26557@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Naturally you'd have to trust that at least one remailer was honest -- > but you already do that, right? Just a curiosity note (yes, I *should* RTFM, but it's about 6am, and I'm late for work, not to mention lazy today :-) While one remailer is considered "sufficient" for the mimaster purpose, does it's position in the chain materially affect it's value? I.e., would there be a "preference" for chaining through the most trusted mix first, last, or "in the middle"? Same question for using the least trusted remailer [frog comes to mind :-(]. Either a discussion or a concise link would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 9 05:09:11 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 07:09:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You know this stuff is freely available through pharmacies, right? So you can buy as much nitroglycerine as you want, and have the health insurance company pay for it. Just tell your doctor you are having "angina". It is dispensed in tubes or tablets (the tablets are more stable). Of course, making a bomb out of it may be difficult, but I'm sure that someone as "~~sinister~~" as you can figure out a way... On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, ~~sinister~~ wrote: > Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:46:18 +1000 > From: ~~sinister~~ > To: cypherpunks at toad.com > Subject: RE BOMB PLANS > > yo man.... > i need some plans to make nitro gliserene i think thats how its spelt.... > come on man get me the shit... > ~~sinister~~ > > -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From aldhina at hotmail.com Wed Aug 8 22:23:16 2001 From: aldhina at hotmail.com (ESAM ABUELKHIRAT) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 07:23:16 +0200 Subject: No subject Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1009 bytes Desc: not available URL: From drevil at sidereal.kz Thu Aug 9 01:08:33 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 9 Aug 2001 08:08:33 -0000 Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? Message-ID: <20010809080833.11532.qmail@sidereal.kz> I have a question for you c'punks. If you wanted to generate some bitmaps of text which would be difficult or impossible to OCR, but not too difficult for humans to read, how would you do that? Basically, I want to create GIFs of text which can't be OCRed in a reliable way. I've thought about some things: I can put in noise pixels, I can blur the text, I can rotate, shear, and otherwise distort it. Anything else I should do? Will these tricks work? Thanks From memcy804001 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 09:35:49 2001 From: memcy804001 at yahoo.com (YourEmailCenter) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 08:35:49 -0800 Subject: The Most Responsive Bizop Leads Message-ID: <200108100229.KAA18933@ms45.hinet.net> Start getting a response to your ad! -------------------------------------------------------------- For the website, click below: http://www.geocities.com/ret813809 -->Do you want to start getting REPLIES for your offer? -->Do you want those replies to be from someone who's actually interested in what you have to offer? **Visit our site to get the MOST responsive bizop e-mail leads available!** For the website, click below: http://www.geocities.com/ret813809 or mailto:emcy80201 at yahoo.com?Subject=MoreInfo809 10,000 e-mails for only $10- NEW 7-31-01! 25,000 e-mails for only $20 50,000 e-mails for only $35 100,000 e-mails for only $50 250,000 e-mails for only $70 **Not an experienced direct mailer? We can send your ad for you! SEE SITE for more details and pricing! New Special~ FREE Stealth Mass Mailer with orders of 250,000! + 5 FREE Bulletproof mail servers! NEW::::::: Check our our Ulimate Marketing CD!:::::::::: E-mail for the site details! - SPECIALS! - **FREE with EVERY order: Demo of ListMan e-mail manager software **Orders of 50,000 or more: FREE copy Express Mail Server to send your messages! -This is not a demo but a permanent license for the software! **Orders of 100,000 or more: - Resale Rights for EMS! -->You keep 100% of the profits - InfoDisk with 1000+ Money Making Reports - CheckMAN software _______________________________________________________________ To be removed from future mailings: mailto:memcy804001 at yahoo.com?Subject=Remove 808E From bear at sonic.net Thu Aug 9 08:52:44 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 08:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Remailer Phases In-Reply-To: <011a01c12047$26ff0aa0$dfc0b6c7@josephas> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: >I don't trust any of them. I don't personally use remailers, I don't tend to >do things that are illegal, but if I did there are other methods that I'd >use. > Joe Illegal? Dude, there are much better reasons to use remailers. I use remailers in basically any situation where I am responsible for keeping something confidential, or when I'm writing from an account where I don't want to get spammed. I don't do a damned thing illegal, I don't think, online -- but remailers are still useful. Bear From bear at sonic.net Thu Aug 9 09:04:11 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <002b01c1205d$017d22b0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: >> I agree with Dr. Evil about the unlikelihood of it ever happening, but if it >> did, I think the intruder is toast. In California, there is the presumption >> that anyone in your house (at least after dark, though I'd have to research >> that) is there with the intent of causing death or great bodily harm. He >> doesn't have to do anything overt like raise a crowbar. So you can just >> shoot first and ask questions later. > >I didn't realize any states but Virginia still held this old "burglary" >definition. Are you certain that's current law? > IIRC, last time I wandered through Colorado (I forget the year just now, but between '87 and '92 I think) there was a lot of public debate regarding the recently passed "make my day" law, which basically said the same thing. I remember being advised in Kansas that you couldn't just shoot someone in your house -- unless you were in a room that had no exit other than the one blocked by the person you were shooting. The presumption was that as long as you still had some kind of exit where you could run away, shooting was not necessary. And shooting in the back sort of queered the presumption that you were in fear for your life, too: If the intruder was not advancing on you, shooting was considered unnecessary. As I understand the situation in California, I think Tim is right; an intruder in your home is presumed to be there for nefarious purposes, period, and shooting is presumed self-defense. Bear From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 9 09:59:50 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 09:59:50 -0700 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS Message-ID: <3B72C186.C1B59151@lsil.com> ~~sinister~~ wrote: > yo man.... i need some plans to make nitro gliserene i think thats > how its spelt.... come on man get me the shit... > Let's see, Starts off with some ebonics, tries hooked on phonics but get's 'glycerine' wrong and finishes up with the archaic variant 'spelt'. Celebrating diversity across time and the gene pool as it were. It's not even funny anymore. Mike RSW gives excellent advice. Bear in mind : the larger the batch the easier it will be to keep it hot... From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 9 10:01:18 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:01:18 -0700 Subject: Remailer Phases In-Reply-To: <023601c11faf$460735a0$c5c1b6c7@josephas> References: <9e09b007d3c12b4726c36f40e0ac2297@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010809100118.008f6b80@pop.sprynet.com> At 09:05 PM 8/7/01 -0500, Joseph Ashwood wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "A. Melon" >Subject: re: Remailer Phases > > >> > 2. Operator probably trustworthy >> >> Impossible, and unnecessary. Don't assume any remops are trustworthy. > >Actually it is absolutely necessary. If all operators are willing to >collude, then your precious anonymity is completely lost. Joe, you're obviously new to the game. The game is, design a protocol where you are resistant to some, but not complete collusion (aka node failure). And analyze as best you can your protocol's fault tree, including succeptibility to collusion. From bob at black.org Thu Aug 9 10:13:14 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:13:14 -0700 Subject: Remailer Phases and Joseph Ashwood's criminal behavior Message-ID: <3B72C4A9.34FCCF53@black.org> At 03:16 PM 8/8/01 -0500, Joseph Ashwood wrote: >> Who of the current remops do you trust? Why? > >I don't trust any of them. I don't personally use remailers, I don't tend to >do things that are illegal, but if I did there are other methods that I'd >use. > Joe Joe, only a dipshit thinks anonymity (or confidentiality) is for criminals[1]. You don't always give your personal info out every time you speak in public, right? You use envelopes, not postcards, right? [1] stick with payphones and letters for your ransom notes and death threats, Joe, you'll find computers too complicated. From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 9 10:18:55 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:18:55 -0700 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <20010808195231.A23427@cluebot.com> References: <3B70B957.63D2C2B@ameritech.net> <3B70B957.63D2C2B@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010809101855.007e9a30@pop.sprynet.com> At 07:52 PM 8/8/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >But he asked for info on the "national security" aspects of the >highly classified surveillance technique under seal. > >Defense attys don't get to see it. See my wired.com article. > >-Declan > > >On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:00:25PM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: >> The judge in the Scarfo. case just ordered the feebs to reveal how >> they got the evidence, full details. >> The difference is that now the feds have to trust a judge with no security clearance/experience not to accidentally spill the beans. From rsw at mit.edu Thu Aug 9 07:21:48 2001 From: rsw at mit.edu (Riad S. Wahby) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:21:48 -0400 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: ; from sinister_000@hotmail.com on Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 09:46:18PM +1000 References: Message-ID: <20010809102148.A19933@positron.mit.edu> ~~sinister~~ wrote: > yo man.... i need some plans to make nitro gliserene i think thats > how its spelt.... come on man get me the shit... Just make sure to keep it real hot. That'll, uh, take care of you. >-) -- Riad Wahby rsw at mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 9 10:26:50 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:26:50 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108091727.f79HR6510125@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 09:04 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote: > As I understand the situation in California, I think Tim is right; > an intruder in your home is presumed to be there for nefarious > purposes, period, and shooting is presumed self-defense. > Two other points to also consider: 1) "Home invasions" have become more and more common (especially in states like California where gun ownership has been made more difficult). The home invaders often case a home where they suspect jewels, money, etc. are hidden, then "invade" the house. Occupants are forced to lie down, are often gagged and bound, and in some cases are executed on the spot. (A family of Vietnamese immigrants was killed execution-style just a short while back in San Jose, CA.) 2) Some of these home invaders yell "Police!" to slow down responses. And flashing a fake badge is a common way for those ripping off a drug deal to chase off or confuse their targets. Frankly, if I found someone in my house at any hour of the day, and he or she had not been invited in (after presenting a search warrant, for example, as the Fourth Amendment calls for), I would treat them as a hostile. Doesn't matter if they yell "Cop!" Real cops with real search warrants can knock on the door and say "We have a warrant to search your house." If they fear that I will shoot them at the door, which doesn't seem to be a very plausible fear (few incidents of this), they can always do the old "We have your place surrounded. Come out with your hands up." routine. If they fear I will flush drugs down the toilet, they can take other technological measures. But it's the mark of a police state when the M.O. for serving search warrants is what they did to Dr. Scott in Malibu and to so many others: burst through the doors and windows with flash-bang grenades to stun the occupants, then shoot anything that moves. (Here in California, several recent cases in Stockton and Bakersfield where they got the wrong house. When the confused occupant moved in a way they didn't like, they shot him dead. "Oops." No murder charges filed against the SWAT members.) In the case of surreptitious entry, deadly force against the intruder is obviously justifiable. --Tim May From matt at rearviewmirror.org Thu Aug 9 10:35:19 2001 From: matt at rearviewmirror.org (Matt Beland) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:35:19 -0700 Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? In-Reply-To: <20010809191351.X360@aba.krakow.pl> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:13:51 +0200 Pawel Krawczyk wrote: > I was thinking about building medium size WANs based on > peer to peer > radio links and wonder if such technology exists already? Yes. 802.11b. > The idea is to have a number of boxes with indoor or > outdoor antenna. > For example in a city you could have such a box in each > flat, in a > village in each house. The requirement is that they are > far from each > other not more that say 200 meters, depending on what our > hypothetical > wireless technology allows. So far it's quite similiar to > what we > already have with WLANs. > > The difference is that the boxes can forward packets for > each other, > thus allowing distant nodes to communicate via the > `router' nodes > between them. Many more ideas come to mind here like > dynamic routing, > access control, traffic policing etc. Look at what these guys are doing. They even make their software available. http://www.seattlewireless.net/ > As for the wireless connection I was thinking about > low-power radio > broadcast, so you don't need to get license and the big > telcos can't > sue you as breaking monopolies (still in Poland...). The > low-power > requirement implies relatively short distance, like > 100-200 meters. > But that's quite enough with average distance between > houses being > much smaller in areas where many people live. > > Do you know technologies like this, existing already? > What bandwidth > you can get with wireless links based on radio > modulation? Thanks > for all suggestions. 802.11b, 11Mb/sec, up to 15 mile range with the right antennae, no licensing costs. Sound good enough? From nobody at mix.winterorbit.com Thu Aug 9 01:37:39 2001 From: nobody at mix.winterorbit.com (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:37:39 +0200 Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops Message-ID: <7607252a082cb4bd092fd9937dc3e754@mix.winterorbit.com> Joseph Ashwood wrote: >[Jim Choate wrote]: >> The next major question is to determine where the drops are >> happening. Inbound, outbound, inter-remailer, intra-remailer? > > That matters from a correction view but not from a usage view, which > I assume we're taking. Basically we don't care what technology the > remailer uses as long as it is correct technology and > trustable. From there we care only what remailers are disfunctional > and which are useful. Hear, hear. > Correcting this is much more difficult, but would only take the use > of digital signatures and encryption on all the messages traversing > the network. The quick and dirty way to do this is to sign and encrypt traffic between remailers with gpg. But, I doubt this will be necessary. (At some point something like this should be done, however, especially as the added encryption makes flooding attacks much harder.) It would be dumb for an adversary to attempt sabotage by causing message drops because we can definitively solve the problem and in doing so we may detect it, thus revealing the operation. For example, two remailer ops could collude to the extent of keeping checksums of their mutual traffic and comparing offline. This is indetectible to the active attacker, but his or her presence will be revealed. Once revealed, the ops can methodically and quietly track down how the attack is being performed. This would be big news. Far more effective is for an attacker to run a remailer perfectly, but quietly watch everything going by. (Hope nobody's taking notes! ;-) >> If at all possible all measurements should be made anonymously and >> as stealthily as possible. > > Agreed I was beginning to adress this above, it still has some major > problems. This isn't necessary if you have identified a working set of remailers. When they just work, you don't have to identify the bad ones. (Trust and reputation might be a faster way to get there than statistics.) The level of reliability specified, roughly 1 in 5000 messages dropped, is barely detectible and is thus a good value. If you send 10,000 messages in a month, that's about 330/day. For example, you might be feeding a few newsgroups through the mixmaster network to a friend. If the "packets" are sequenced and none are lost, then the goal has been achieved. This test could be performed as a side benefit of some other activity. Also, if the 1 in 5000 figure is truly independent (a stretch, perhaps), sending the message three times gives you less than one in a billion chance of failure. Good enough for government work. From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 9 10:37:51 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:37:51 -0700 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <3B72C186.C1B59151@lsil.com> Message-ID: <200108091738.f79Hc2510280@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 09:59 AM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > ~~sinister~~ wrote: >> yo man.... i need some plans to make nitro gliserene i think thats >> how its spelt.... come on man get me the shit... >> > Let's see, > > Starts off with some ebonics, tries hooked on phonics but get's > 'glycerine' wrong and finishes up with the archaic variant 'spelt'. > Celebrating diversity across time and the gene pool as it were. > > It's not even funny anymore. > > The cops who are trolling for busts are taught by consultants to try to sound like either kids, or Aryans, or original gangsta niggaz. Someday there's going to be a major bust based on one of these "bombz rulez, d00dz!" trolls. The Feinstein bitch is itching for such a bust, to get her "outlawing of bomb plans" legislation moving again. I expect the same kind of low-rent prosecutors who went after Jim Bell and C.J. Parker are also itching for such a case. What I've done in a couple of these "Send me bombz info" trolls is to use a remailer chain to send the AOL cop trollers some truly interesting stuff about Astrolite and how to make it. All available from online places (well, CNN yanked the Astrolite material after explosives experts whined that CNN had detailed info on ANFO). If a bombz d00d blows himself up, think of it as evolution in action. From mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net Thu Aug 9 01:44:47 2001 From: mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net (Anonymous Coredump) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:44:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Remailer Phases Message-ID: <1bd2ce8cb49e810bfdfa3bb12467b5b7@remailer.segfault.net> Joseph Ashwood wrote: > As has been pointed out it's not latency but latency/messages that > matters. If there are 2 messages a day going through the system > then 5 minutes is simply not enough, it will be completely > traceable. OTOH if there are 5000/sec going through the system then > 5 minutes is arguably overkill. Oh, I think I understand the confusion now. There is a latency feature which allows a sender to request a message be held for some specified length of time before being placed in the message pool. In essence, the arrival of the message to the core of the remailer is delayed. This is a fine feature - it is almost a requirement for a really good remailer net. However, the latency I am discussing is less complicated - it's just the average time a message remains in the remailer when it's being sent straight through the system with no extra latency requested. In other words, a message which is sent in such a way that transit time is minimized. It is not something the sender can, or would want to, specify. This value is a function only of the pool sizes of the remailers and the number of messages sent through over a period of time. For example, let's say we have 10 remailers and 100 users. How many messages a day do these users have to send to see an average latency of 5 min. per hop? (Assume the pool size is 30.) Each remailer must handle 30 msgs / 5 min. = 6 msgs/min, or 8,640 msgs/day. Assuming each user routes their messages through 20 hops, each message will go through each remailer twice, on average. So, the users will send 8,640 msgs/2 = 4,320 msgs during the day. On average, each user would send 43.2 messages per day, or one every 33.33 minutes. So, you can see that this is quite feasible if people are sending any news feeds, mailing lists, cover traffic, or even just a lot of e-mail through the system. From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 9 07:46:53 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:46:53 -0400 Subject: OT: Happy Fun Ball (Court) Message-ID: As a public service, I'd thought I'd explain for our foreign (or just younger) subscribers the root reference of 'Happy Fun Court'. The American comedy show Saturday Night Live usually runs 1-2 fake ads per show. Some are better than others. In 1990, one ad showed smiling children playing with their 'Happy Fun Balls'. At the end, the ad ran a disclaimer (American products often come with ludicrously detailed warnings and disclaimers, due to our corrupt legal system). It read: -------------------------------------- Happy FUN BALL! -only $14.95- Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball. Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds. Happy Fun Ball Contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs: Itching Vertigo Dizziness Tingling in extremities Loss of balance or coordination Slurred speech Temporary blindness Profuse sweating Heart palpitations If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head. Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin. When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration... Failure to do so relieves the makers of Happy Fun Ball, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company Global Chemical Unlimited, of any and all liability. Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space. Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Happy Fun Ball comes with a lifetime guarantee. Happy Fun Ball ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES! From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 9 10:47:03 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:47:03 -0700 Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? In-Reply-To: <20010809080833.11532.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010809104703.008e4a40@pop.sprynet.com> At 08:08 AM 8/9/01 -0000, Dr. Evil wrote: >I have a question for you c'punks. If you wanted to generate some >bitmaps of text which would be difficult or impossible to OCR, but not >too difficult for humans to read, how would you do that? Basically, I >want to create GIFs of text which can't be OCRed in a reliable way. >I've thought about some things: I can put in noise pixels, I can blur >the text, I can rotate, shear, and otherwise distort it. Anything >else I should do? Will these tricks work? Ultimately if humans can read it, a machine can, unless you believe humans are supernatural. However, we're frequently ignorant of how to tell machines to perform as well as us. If you create letters by staggering stripes, the OCR will have a hell of a time. The letter I: ----__--- ----__--- ----__--- ----__--- ----__--- ----__--- Also reversing the contrast (in stripes across the letter) will disrupt simpler OCR edge tracers, though this camoflage may impair human readability too. From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 9 07:47:44 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:47:44 -0400 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia Message-ID: > Tim May[SMTP:tcmay at got.net] wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 02:28 PM, Faustine wrote: > > > Lots of interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications, I'm > > sure... > > http://www.cs.sandia.gov/ > > > Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting > cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? > > (The "challenges" broken by a couple of our own list members over the > past several years were all weak ciphers by modern standards, or had key > lengths way below even the recommended lengths of the day. [...] > There are indeed some cryptographic uses for big computers, but not much > of real interest here. Some voice- and traffic-analysis stuff, but not > cracking modern ciphers. > --Tim May > I'll second this - the early 40 bit SSL cracks, and the RSA Symmetric challenges, operated to force acknowledgement that 40 and 56 bit keylengths were simply inadequate. I was particularly steamed by some Clinton appointee claiming with a straight face that a DES cracker could not be built because "it would melt down". The success of the challenges created 'facts on the ground' which could not be hand-waved away by government officials, and meant that customers started to insist on something better. BTW, the distributed.net folks are still cranking at 64 bit RC5. They have now searched 54% of the keyspace in 1,386 days. One thing I'd like to see done with these huge distributed computers is to factor moduli, such as those in the RSA Factoring Challenges (the prizes are substantial), A major bottleneck at this point is the matrix reduction step. If a method could be found to run this in parallel, then distributed factoring would be greatly eased. Peter Trei From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 9 08:55:04 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:55:04 -0500 Subject: Ybor City's face recognition cameras claim their first innocent v ictim. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Milliron's photograph was captured in June while he was > on a lunch break in Ybor City. > He didn't know it at the time, but the Police Department > used his photo to demonstrate the system to local news > media. That should violate their policy - if they have one. BIG TIME. Furthermore, use of somebody's picture as background for an article that produces a substantial falsehood about them because of the content of the story = lawsuit, although here I would probably think there was a substantial connection. But the media didn't even take the pic - the police did. I understand the article said he wasn't wanted, but that was still highly suggestive and in bad taste considering the nature of the content. See, e.g. Mertzger v. Dell Pub. Co 207 Misc. 182, 136 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1955)(picture as part of story about gangs falsely portrayed plaintiff as a gang member). Visionics has released a statement in regard to their controversial CCTV facial recognition technology, calling for federal legislation and referencing their "responsible use guidelines." The WIRED story is here: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,45687,00.html (not by Declan)I asked them for their "guidelines" and was directed to their "privacy principles." http://www.visionics.com/newsroom/biometrics/privacy.html ...."In the months to come, the Company will work closely with federal legislators, privacy interest and industry groups to share its knowledge, experience and privacy protection principles pertaining to all applications of face recognition technology. The Company will continue to promote an improved public understanding of the creation, use and control of facial recognition systems and will support public policy that ensures that deployments of facial recognition are conducted in a way that upholds all privacy rights." [...] "Privacy rights" are based on legal doctrines, and not threats identifying activities that are considered privacy-invasive to the average person. The term "privacy rights" is not conducive to societal impact analysis or future technological advances. The International Biometric Industry Association position is that biometrics is "electronic code" and not personal information: http://www.ibia.org/privacy.htm The IBIA has always advocated protective legislation. For an idea of industry sentiment, the IBIA response to one California bill is here: http://www.ibia.org/newslett010606.htm (bill would have required a warrant.) The push for legislation is pre-emptive in nature. Curious to hear from our privacy advocates as to whether or not they have been contacted by Visionics for this initiative. Visionics has come under fire from within the biometrics industry. ~Aimee From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 9 08:11:35 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:11:35 -0400 Subject: Ybor City's face recognition cameras claim their first innocent v ictim. Message-ID: http://www.sptimes.com/News/080801/TampaBay/_They_made_me_feel_li.shtml [In fairness, the false identification was not made by the Face-It system, but by a human. The cited page includes the photo in question - which is a heck of a lot more close up then I expected - pt] 'They made me feel like a criminal' He was just having lunch in Ybor City when a surveillance camera captured his image. Weeks later, the police show up. By AMY HERDY St. Petersburg Times, published August 8, 2001 He was just having lunch in Ybor City when a surveillance camera captured his image. Weeks later, the police show up. TAMPA -- Rob Milliron has never married. He has never had kids, never been to Oklahoma. Yet three Tampa police officers went to Milliron's construction job site Monday and asked him whether he was wanted in Oklahoma for child neglect. It seems that his face wound up on a surveillance camera in Ybor City. News cameras captured that image. A woman in Tulsa saw his picture in U.S. News and World Report and called Tampa police. She said the man in the photo was her ex-husband and was wanted on felony child neglect charges. Turns out they had the wrong man. But the experience has turned Milliron into a vocal critic of the controversial surveillance system. "From that picture, I was identified as a wanted person," said Milliron, 32, whose only previous brush with the law involved a marijuana possession charge when he was 19. The surveillance system uses software called Face-It and is linked to 36 cameras throughout the Centro Ybor entertainment complex and along E Seventh Avenue. Images taken from the cameras are compared with a data base that includes wanted felons and sexual offenders. If the image is a match, officers are dispatched to question the person. But in this case it wasn't the system that flagged Milliron, but simply a woman who saw his picture with a news story. The plainclothes detective, accompanied by two uniformed officers, had a copy of the magazine, folded open to the page with Milliron's photo. After producing identification, answering the detective's questions and enduring curious stares and inquiries from his construction co-workers, a mortified Milliron went home. "He was absolutely horrified," said Cheryl Toole, 32, Milliron's girlfriend of nine years. "He said, "I was surrounded by the police today,' " Toole recalled. "We were worried they'd come to our home in the middle of the night." Equally upsetting, Milliron said, was the fact that beneath his photo in the magazine, a headline read, "You Can't Hide Those Lying Eyes in Tampa." "It made me out to be a criminal," he said. Tampa police Detective Bill Todd, who took the call from the Tulsa woman and interviewed Milliron, said Milliron did not seem upset. "He was laughing about it," said Todd, who spearheaded the software project that captured Milliron's image. Milliron's photograph was captured in June while he was on a lunch break in Ybor City. He didn't know it at the time, but the Police Department used his photo to demonstrate the system to local news media. The software costs $30,000, but is on loan for a year by its owner, Visionics Corp. of New Jersey, while the department decides whether to purchase it. Milliron's photo ran in the St. Petersburg Times June 30. A caption under the photo read, "The man in this image was not identified as wanted." The Times later sold the photo to U.S. News and World Report. The software system has sparked controversy nationwide. Protesters say the "spy cameras" intrude on citizens' privacy. Mayor Dick Greco, however, has said the system is no more intrusive than the cameras found in banks and shopping malls. Milliron, who says he plans to retain an attorney, hopes the software system will be removed. "I don't think it's right," he said. "They made me feel like a criminal." - Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Amy Herdy can be reached at (813) 226-3386 or herdy at sptimes.com. From juicy at melontraffickers.com Thu Aug 9 11:18:56 2001 From: juicy at melontraffickers.com (A. Melon) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:18:56 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants Message-ID: <88974177e660a0c3e89888dca462bffc@melontraffickers.com> What is needed, seriously needed right now, is some good, open source surveillance dectection software. Something that would find key-logger software or hardware, something that would check your phone line thru your modem, maybe even could be used as a frequency analyzer with a usb or serial port "antenna" connection for laptops. I'm sure this would be a really good commercial hit. Especially if the price could be kept under $500. From kb9kos at juno.com Thu Aug 9 09:29:22 2001 From: kb9kos at juno.com (Fred A Morgan) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:29:22 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <20010809.112924.-642809.0.kb9kos@juno.com> ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 9 11:43:57 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 11:43:57 -0700 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique Message-ID: <3B72D9ED.7360D4F5@lsil.com> David Honig wrote : >At 07:52 PM 8/8/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>But he asked for info on the "national security" aspects of the >>highly classified surveillance technique under seal. >> >>Defense attys don't get to see it. See my wired.com article. >> >>-Declan >> >> >>On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 11:00:25PM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: >>> The judge in the Scarfo. case just ordered the feebs to reveal how >>> they got the evidence, full details. >>> > >The difference is that now the feds have to trust a judge with no >security clearance/experience not to accidentally spill the beans. > Don't hold your breath. I doubt that they used anything that has not been the subject of speculation here. Mike From polz at free.fr Thu Aug 9 03:06:37 2001 From: polz at free.fr (polz at free.fr) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:06:37 +0200 Subject: subscribe Message-ID: <74o4nt8739mis736chhs3h8mng56kh27s7@4ax.com> subscribe polz at free.fr From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Thu Aug 9 04:13:27 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:13:27 +0100 Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? References: <20010809080833.11532.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <3B727057.632F0EED@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Write by hand. Change your handwriting style part-way through. The other option, which will take you *much* longer to set up, is to use contrasting colours of background and text, but make them change, like those cards for detecting colour blindness. So the background would be a smoothly changing mess of colours and the text would, in effect, be a mask into a different smoothly changing mess of colours. If you randomised it you could get stuff where the chance of suitable contrast was high enough that enough text had a sharp enough edge to read, but enough of it was blurred to cause confusion to OCR. Not to mention migraines to humans. If the colours were chosen carefully, off-the-shelf OCR would also be confused because the contrast of the edges would be colour, not intensity. OTOH it would be circumventable by enhancing colour contrast then switching to monochrome & enhancing edges. Anything you can do in 10 minutes with Paint Shop Pro is probably doable by the Men In Black sooner or later. To be honest, the whole thing is likely to be worth more as a tool for generating retro-Op Art or Pop Art images. Write the code & pray for a revival of free festivals. For obfuscation, stick to handwriting. As an afterthought, the experts in this must be the people who print banknotes. Real ones, I mean, not your boring US green ones that are all the same size and colour so foreigners can't tell them apart and you have to employ millions of Secret Service agents to stop forgers. I bet the Bank of England go on about it on their website. Ken Brown "Dr. Evil" wrote: > I have a question for you c'punks. If you wanted to generate some > bitmaps of text which would be difficult or impossible to OCR, but not > too difficult for humans to read, how would you do that? Basically, I > want to create GIFs of text which can't be OCRed in a reliable way. pardon me for top-posting... From pth at ibuc.com Thu Aug 9 12:18:40 2001 From: pth at ibuc.com (Paul Harrison) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 12:18:40 -0700 Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? References: <20010809191351.X360@aba.krakow.pl> Message-ID: <3B72E20D.CBD29F15@ibuc.com> From adam at homeport.org Thu Aug 9 09:28:18 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:28:18 -0400 Subject: Ybor City's face recognition cameras claim their first innocent v ictim. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20010809122818.A26595@weathership.homeport.org> Its too bad that they've never caught any criminals using these systems; if they had, they could have used one of those pictures. On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 10:55:04AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: | > Milliron's photograph was captured in June while he was | > on a lunch break in Ybor City. | > He didn't know it at the time, but the Police Department | > used his photo to demonstrate the system to local news | > media. | | That should violate their policy - if they have one. BIG TIME. As Richard Jewell might ask, "Yeah, so?" Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From elyn at consect.com Thu Aug 9 09:31:06 2001 From: elyn at consect.com (Elyn Wollensky) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:31:06 -0400 Subject: Happy Fun Ball (Court) References: Message-ID: <00f201c120f0$bae9aa00$6b8d1d18@nyc.rr.com> > Happy FUN BALL! > > -only $14.95- > > Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly and children under 10 should avoid > prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball. > Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds. > Happy Fun Ball Contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to > rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. > Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. > Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs: > Itching > Vertigo > Dizziness > Tingling in extremities > Loss of balance or coordination > Slurred speech > Temporary blindness > Profuse sweating > Heart palpitations Sounds like the drug adverts running on TV ... my personal favorite is Propetia ... "Pregnant Women Should NEVER handle Propetia" :~) elyn. > If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter > and cover head. > Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin. > When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special > container and kept under refrigeration... > Failure to do so relieves the makers of Happy Fun Ball, Wacky Products > Incorporated, and its parent company Global Chemical > Unlimited, of any and all liability. > Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an unknown glowing substance > which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space. > Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is > also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq. > Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. > Happy Fun Ball comes with a lifetime guarantee. > Happy Fun Ball > > ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES! From Trypropec at cs.com Thu Aug 9 12:32:07 2001 From: Trypropec at cs.com (Trypropec at cs.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:32:07 -0700 Subject: Want a larger penis ? Message-ID: <200108091929.f79JTK517460@rigel.cyberpass.net> Hello, I have discovered a new all natural, proven and gauranteed penis enlargement cream. I have, as many others have. Increased my Penis size by 20%. This all natural safe new product is limited due to production. If interested please visit WWW.propec.friendpages.com We are offering free shipping on the first order. Please disregard this message if you received it in error. From Trypropec at cs.com Thu Aug 9 12:32:10 2001 From: Trypropec at cs.com (Trypropec at cs.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:32:10 -0700 Subject: Want a larger penis ? Message-ID: <200108091939.OAA30705@einstein.ssz.com> Hello, I have discovered a new all natural, proven and gauranteed penis enlargement cream. I have, as many others have. Increased my Penis size by 20%. This all natural safe new product is limited due to production. If interested please visit WWW.propec.friendpages.com We are offering free shipping on the first order. Please disregard this message if you received it in error. From Trypropec at cs.com Thu Aug 9 12:32:25 2001 From: Trypropec at cs.com (Trypropec at cs.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:32:25 -0700 Subject: Want a larger penis ? Message-ID: <200108091939.OAA30701@einstein.ssz.com> Hello, I have discovered a new all natural, proven and gauranteed penis enlargement cream. I have, as many others have. Increased my Penis size by 20%. This all natural safe new product is limited due to production. If interested please visit WWW.propec.friendpages.com We are offering free shipping on the first order. Please disregard this message if you received it in error. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 9 10:43:31 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:43:31 -0500 Subject: Ybor City's face recognition cameras claim their first innocent v ictim. In-Reply-To: <20010809122818.A26595@weathership.homeport.org> Message-ID: Shostack: >Its too bad that they've never caught any criminals using these > systems; if they had, they could have used one of those pictures. > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 10:55:04AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: > | > Milliron's photograph was captured in June while he was > | > on a lunch break in Ybor City. > | > He didn't know it at the time, but the Police Department > | > used his photo to demonstrate the system to local news > | > media. > | > As Richard Jewell might ask, "Yeah, so?" > > Adam [I'm catching heat on the biometric biggies list now...below some of my comments...] If a background picture is used for an article and it produces a substantial falsehood because of the content of the story, courts have found that the relationship link between the use of a person's identity and the newsworthiness of the story is not satisfied. See, e.g. Metzger v. Dell Pub. Co., 207 Misc 182, 136 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1955) (picture as part of story on gangs, falsely portrayed plaintiff as gang member). However, realize the power of the First Amendment in more modern contexts..... Still, I still consider it in very poor taste. The police are not the media. Due to the concerns here, standards should be at the ceiling -- not the legal floor. Was that a "permissible purpose?" Or was that a secondary purpose the man did not anticipate when he walked past the "Smart CCTV" sign? I would argue that under well-established privacy principles, that was an impermissible use and secondary purpose. I don't think he anticipated being used as a "model." Permissible purpose is the cornerstone of information privacy. Is one permissible purpose not in their operation and use policy? Obviously not. Or, they ignored it. Or, nobody explained it to them. Or, they just didn't care? (Is the media report about how this came about deceptive?) Look, I've got celebrities being subjected to CCTV bounties. I'm seeing rogue surveillance footage on the Net as entertainment. Even wiretap surveillance. Any surveillance policy has to incorporate one permissible purpose. That content should never leave the scope of the security purpose. I don't think a "publicity purpose" qualifies. A subject's image is not marketing material. Furthermore, access to material outside of the security purpose and identified security personnel probably needs to include a subpoena. No, not even for demonstration. Many people would have considered this an incident of "data abuse." At the surface, and based on the media reports (again, suspect) this looks like a gross violation of public trust. ~Aimee From ashwood at msn.com Thu Aug 9 10:52:36 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:52:36 -0500 Subject: Remailer Phases References: <9e09b007d3c12b4726c36f40e0ac2297@melontraffickers.com> <3.0.6.32.20010809100118.008f6b80@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <00ba01c120fc$a7f3ba60$0ac0b6c7@josephas> Let me see if I've got your personal fantasy correct, because that's all it is. You believe that it is best to design a protocol that is somewhat resistant, and simply ignore it's faults. I strongly disagree, doing that is to put it bluntly stupid. The real game is to design a protocol and make it's strengths and weaknesses known. Anything else is just more stupidity. And for the record, I'm far from new. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Honig" To: "Joseph Ashwood" ; Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:01 PM Subject: CDR: Re: re: Remailer Phases > At 09:05 PM 8/7/01 -0500, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "A. Melon" > >Subject: re: Remailer Phases > > > > > >> > 2. Operator probably trustworthy > >> > >> Impossible, and unnecessary. Don't assume any remops are trustworthy. > > > >Actually it is absolutely necessary. If all operators are willing to > >collude, then your precious anonymity is completely lost. > > Joe, you're obviously new to the game. > > The game is, design a protocol where you are resistant to some, but not > complete collusion (aka node failure). And analyze as best you can your > protocol's fault tree, including succeptibility to collusion. From pzakas at toucancapital.com Thu Aug 9 10:08:04 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:08:04 -0400 Subject: Ybor City's face recognition cameras claim their first innocent v ictim. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Aimee wrote: > The International Biometric Industry Association position is that biometrics > is "electronic code" and not personal information: > http://www.ibia.org/privacy.htm The IBIA has always advocated protective > legislation. For an idea of industry sentiment, the IBIA response to one > California bill is here: http://www.ibia.org/newslett010606.htm (bill would > have required a warrant.) Why isn't automated video surveillance considered biometric? Isn't the point of biometric identification to reduce personally-identifiable features into a code which can be easily stored and referenced computationally? And if so, this video surveillance system, with its automated face recognition software, should be considered a form of biometric identification. Further, if the category "personal information" isn't just about medical history, financial records, etc., shouldn't it include photographs and video and voice? Obviously the IBIA demonstrating naivety when it says biometrics are simply "electronic code" and not personal information. (which reminds me of a speaker at biotech 2001 who advocated the sharing of all mri and xray images to futher research into computational biology -- as for privacy "we'll figure it out later".) The rest of the privacy policies of the IBIA (http://www.ibia.org/privacy.htm) are horribly off the mark as well. What about the concept of individual rights to provide/not provide data; insure that the $7/hour rent-a-cop is monitored to make sure he isn't using data illegally; insure data won't be used in applications/research not already agreed-to in advance by the individual; individual right to not have biometric information collected in the first place or even opt out of existing databases, etc. etc.? phillip From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Thu Aug 9 16:11:47 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:11:47 -1000 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <200108091738.f79Hc2510280@slack.lne.com> References: <3B72C186.C1B59151@lsil.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010809130811.02acea90@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 07:37 AM 8/9/01, Tim May wrote: >On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 09:59 AM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > >> It's not even funny anymore. >> >> > >The cops who are trolling for busts are taught by consultants to try to >sound like either kids, or Aryans, or original gangsta niggaz. > >Someday there's going to be a major bust based on one of these "bombz >rulez, d00dz!" trolls. The Feinstein bitch is itching for such a bust, >to get her "outlawing of bomb plans" legislation moving again. I expect >the same kind of low-rent prosecutors who went after Jim Bell and C.J. >Parker are also itching for such a case. > >What I've done in a couple of these "Send me bombz info" trolls is to >use a remailer chain to send the AOL cop trollers some truly interesting >stuff about Astrolite and how to make it. All available from online >places (well, CNN yanked the Astrolite material after explosives experts >whined that CNN had detailed info on ANFO). Interesting. After I posted the Texas Chili recipe (in response to a stink bomb troll), I began receiving offlist instructions for how to make "bombs" with water and dry ice, baking soda and vinegar, and the like. Truly bizarre, I wonder at their level of desperation. Reese From ashwood at msn.com Thu Aug 9 11:17:31 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:17:31 -0500 Subject: Remailer Phases and Joseph Ashwood's criminal behavior References: <3B72C4A9.34FCCF53@black.org> Message-ID: <014301c12100$3a6504a0$0ac0b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Subcommander Bob" Subject: CDR: Remailer Phases and Joseph Ashwood's criminal behavior > At 03:16 PM 8/8/01 -0500, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > >> Who of the current remops do you trust? Why? > > > >I don't trust any of them. I don't personally use remailers, I don't > tend to > >do things that are illegal, but if I did there are other methods that > I'd > >use. > > Joe > > Joe, only a dipshit thinks anonymity (or confidentiality) is for > criminals[1]. There you go confusing things again, I really wish you'd get that fixed. Anonymity is strictly for the purpose of doing something that would otherwise be troublesome. Perhaps you are confusing anonymity with pseudonymity? Confidentiality is another matter entirely, and strictly seperate from anonymity or pseudonymity. I think once you deal with your confusion (which I understand, you are most likely a product of the american school system which for quite some time confused me also) you will see things much more reasonably. > > You don't always give your personal info out every time you speak in > public, right? And do you always wear a black plastic tarp that's inflated to the size of a small car to hide your identity in public? You are failing to grasp the difference between anonymity and not forcibly revealing information. > You use envelopes, not postcards, right? And you put your return address either on the envelope or in the letter don't you? You seem to be having a very hard time grasping the difference between functional anonymity and forced anonymity, let alone the often more difficult to grasp pseudonymity versus anonymity. Let me give you an example. If you go outside right now and walk down the street, you will likely pass a person. Do you care who that person is? Do you know that person? Does the person care who you are? Does the person know you? If the answer is no, then the two of you have functional anonymity. > > [1] stick with payphones and letters for your ransom notes and death > threats, Joe, > you'll find computers too complicated. I see the less intelligent are crawling out of the woodwork on this one (I've got a few more in my inbox). I said I don't use anonymous remailers, that is far different from not making use of anonymity (which I occasionally do require), or pseudonymity which I quite often use. There seems to be a significant number of people that have little to no grasp of the differences between anonymity, functional anonymity, and pseudonymity. Anonymity is where no matter how hard the attacker works they cannot find out who sent (or in some cases received) the message, this level of anonymity is simply not available through remailers (see my message where I dictated the collusion to break the entire remailer network). Functional anonymity is much more possible, that's where it will take more work than the attacker is willing to put in, this level is attainable and is probably available from various sources. Pseudonymity is what most people really want when they say anonymity, that's where the attacker will not/is unable to expend the work effort to find out who actually sent the message, but any future messages sent can be linked, hushmail is quite often used in this way. I think once people get these straight the level of uninformedness on the subject will very quickly lower itself. Joe From alqaeda at hq.org Thu Aug 9 13:18:31 2001 From: alqaeda at hq.org (Alfred Qaeda) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:18:31 -0700 Subject: Code Red Prompts AT&T to Unplug Customer Web Sites Message-ID: <3B72F016.BBF424B2@hq.org> Is it a DDoS when a worm causes administrative DoS? (firewalling, enforcing a previously non-enforced contract..) If so, Code Red & Microsoft win again. Really too bad; a lot of the residential customers would not be running IIS but something else on other-than-NT systems. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010808/wr/tech_codered_att_dc_1.html Worms Prompt AT&T to Unplug Customer Web Sites SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - To keep the spread of the Code Red worms from slowing down its cable Internet network, AT&T Corp. (NYSE:T - news) is blocking access to Web servers that residential customers are running, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday. ``We are trying to protect our greater user population as a whole,'' said AT&T spokeswoman Sarah Eder. The company provides cable Internet access to 1.35 million residential customers, she said. By blocking incoming traffic to Web servers, AT&T is effectively shutting down the Web sites, which residential customers are not supposed to be operating anyway, Eder said. ``According to our official use policy, customers are not permitted to operate Web servers behind cable modems,'' she said. Commercial customers of AT&T's cable Internet service are not affected, she added. The Code Red worms spread through a hole in Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Information Server Web software running on Windows NT and 2000 computers and then scan the Internet looking for new computers to infect. Code Red II, which surfaced on Saturday, leaves a ``back door'' on infected computers, making them vulnerable to future hacking. Code Red II also spreads more quickly, looking for computers in close proximity or the same network to infect rather than random computers on the Internet, like Code Red I does. This scanning of the local neighborhoods is slowing down cable modem networks, where subscribers share bandwidth. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 9 11:22:56 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:22:56 -0500 Subject: Ybor City's face recognition cameras claim their first innocent v ictim. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: pz wrote: > Why isn't automated video surveillance considered biometric? Isn't the > point of biometric identification to reduce > personally-identifiable features > into a code which can be easily stored and referenced > computationally? And > if so, this video surveillance system, with its automated face recognition > software, should be considered a form of biometric > identification. It is biometric. > Further, > if the category "personal information" isn't just about medical history, > financial records, etc., shouldn't it include photographs and video and > voice? It should. Realize the IBIA has been very responsible, in comparison to other industries. They had some problems with the CA bill, but left a lot of the safeguards. The industry wants to see safeguards - but yes, they serve their own interests. Go look at the IBIA membership - where are the privacy advocate positions? They do have some noted advisors. They offer a membership for end-users but it is more expensive than one of their lower-tier vendors. I see the reasons for it, common in many industry associations. However, I wish more of them (specifically, the IBIA and the SIA - Security Industry Association) would establish formal advisory relationships with privacy advocacy groups. I advocate a *new* privacy advocacy group for security-privacy and surveillance. > Obviously the IBIA demonstrating naivety when it says > biometrics are > simply "electronic code" and not personal information. :) > (which reminds me of a speaker at biotech 2001 who advocated the > sharing of > all mri and xray images to futher research into computational > biology -- as > for privacy "we'll figure it out later".) That's a big medical privacy issue. Interesting cases on that. First Monday just had an interesting paper on blind research infomediaries...I was trying to turn it into something we had talked about privately...go over there an look....didn't look like it would work. > The rest of the privacy policies of the IBIA > (http://www.ibia.org/privacy.htm) are horribly off the mark as well. What > about the concept of individual rights to provide/not provide data; insure > that the $7/hour rent-a-cop is monitored to make sure he isn't using data > illegally; insure data won't be used in applications/research not already > agreed-to in advance by the individual; individual right to not have > biometric information collected in the first place or even opt out of > existing databases, etc. etc.? Ah, fair information code of practice - yes, indeed. However, security-privacy is a unique juncture. I argue that they should incorporate more of these standards. I don't like their principles approach. Show me exemplar guidelines that are comprehensive in nature. Show me a accountability. HYPO: -deleted as to too sensitive and cypherpunk-provoking- Sent to you privately. HYPO: Are we moving to a biometric crypto-passphrase? Good/bad? Why? HYPO: No hypo, but I just heard something about ANONYMOUS biometric digital cash. How the hell do you do that? ~Aimee From T_crow133 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 9 13:37:09 2001 From: T_crow133 at hotmail.com (T_crow133 at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Membership data Message-ID: <200108092037.NAA06894@toad.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2169 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bear at sonic.net Thu Aug 9 13:46:14 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Evolution is a mother. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > >> RSW gives excellent advice. Bear in mind : the larger the batch the >> easier it will be to keep it hot... > >I recommend organic peroxides. Preferably, large quantities thereof, >suddenly heated in closed vessels made from specific metals. Excellently >suitable for beginner pyrotechnicians. > Hmmm. Sooner or later, some idjit is going to try some of this stuff. Evolution is going to happen, which may be a good thing, but people who gave specific tips on how to speed it up, may be blamed for it. If someone was looking for an excuse to arrest someone or make a life inconvenient, a little evolution happening offstage might provide such an excuse. Bear From bear at sonic.net Thu Aug 9 13:53:34 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Matt Beland wrote: >802.11b, 11Mb/sec, up to 15 mile range with the right >antennae, no licensing costs. Sound good enough? Obviously not. Have you even been reading the news lately? Although fixing the 802.11b protocol might be a good cypherpunkish undertaking (for those who still write code). 802.11c, anyone? It looks like it ought to be pretty simple. Just substitute AES for RC4 and go. The problem as usual is key distribution. Bear From bear at sonic.net Thu Aug 9 13:58:08 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010809140337.024caec0@mail.well.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: >At 10:18 AM 8/9/01 -0700, David Honig wrote: > >>The difference is that now the feds have to trust a judge with no >>security clearance/experience not to accidentally spill the beans. > >Huh? Judges accept things under seal all the time. Wiretap orders, for >instance. The complaint in the Sklyarov case, for another. I should hope that if the bugging technology is materially relevant in the legal findings, it would have to be entered into evidence and available for review by defense attorneys etc. Wasn't there a "right to be presented with all evidence against" somewhere in there? Bear From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 9 14:00:12 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:00:12 -0700 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <3B72D9ED.7360D4F5@lsil.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010809140012.007ebe00@pop.sprynet.com> At 11:43 AM 8/9/01 -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >David Honig wrote : >> >>The difference is that now the feds have to trust a judge with no >>security clearance/experience not to accidentally spill the beans. >> >Don't hold your breath. I doubt that they used anything that has not >been the subject of speculation here. > >Mike Yes, but it would resolve whether software could find the trojan or whether you have to check your cables for extra lumps. From emc at lne.com Thu Aug 9 14:02:32 2001 From: emc at lne.com (Eric Cordian) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:02:32 -0700 Subject: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft Message-ID: <20010809210232.AAA24148+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa.us> Someone's funding must be up for review, because the by now extremely old Reedy case has magically appeared on all newspaper front pages this morning with headlines like "Feds Bust Gigantic Child Porn Ring." Odd, since we've been discussing the case since April 15th, 2000, around the time the Feebs raided and shut down the Reedys' servers. To recap, Thomas and Janice Reedy ran a popular age verification service, which offered the AVS and KeyZ codes to 250,000 subscribers who could then access over 5,000 adult sites. Typically, an age verification service will keep some of this money, and give another part of it to the sites that you visit. Anyone could sign up to be a webmaster under the program, and the Reedys were assured by their lawyers that they were not responsible for content. The service prospered, and the Reedys lived very comfortably. Well, apparently an enormous TWO of the adult sites in question, located in the non-internet-porn regulating jurisdictions of Russia and Indonesia, offered material featuring people under the age of 18, which was illegal in the United States, and the bowels of the governmental child-protectors were soon in a gigantic uproar. Now the Feebs are very careful never to prosecute a child porn case they are not absolutely sure of winning, because they want to push the envelope in their desired direction, and not end up with precedents and case law where their doctrine is reversed. Holding an age verification service accountable for two of over 5,000 sites located in a foreign jurisdiction had never been done before. Still, this is America where all the papers will print whatever outrageous bullshit the government says about child porn, without questioning it. So lead prosecutor Terri Moore, a woman in love with the Sex Abuse Agenda, who can rattle off adjectives like "chilling", "frightening", and "feeding the hunger of pedophiles," at breathtaking speed, decided to prosecute the case. Armed with a 87 count indictment from a secret grand jury (the favorite rubber stamp of prosecutors), and comments from other Sex Abuse Agenda proponents like Parry Aftab, who compared the age verification service to the World Trade Center bombing, Ms. Moore put her assault vagina in gear, and headed to the courtroom. Lost in the shuffle were the 250,000 holders of the AVS and KeyZ codes, who found them worthless after the Reedys' servers were seized, and were damn pissed they had been collectively cheated out of millions of dollars. The over 5,000 Adult Webmasters offering perfectly legal porn were also less than amused. The trial was a circus of metaphors, with the Reedys being compared to the madam of a whorehouse prostituting helpless little children. In the end, the jury bought the performance, and returned a guilty verdict. The Feebs had pushed the envelope even further, and age verification services were now responsible for the content of all Web sites that used their codes. Thomas Reedy got life, even though he had never produced a single piece of child porn. His wife got a lesser sentence. But the Feebs were not done yet. They had conducted a sting operation, over a period of two years, trying to induce people to purchase child porn videos, CD-ROMs, and magazines, and had incorporated the Reedys' list of 250,000 age verification service subscribers into the hunt. In the end, when they went public, they had gotten an astounding 144 search warrants, and made an absolutely unbelievable 100 arrests. Bear in mind the Feebs had never brought charges against anyone for having visited one of the two alleged child porn sites. All the arrests were people the Feebs had independently trolled to buy material offered by the government, completely apart from the Reedys' operation. But that was only the beginning of the lying. The government propaganda machine spun into full gear, and newspapers began to write stories which by the usual mixture of juxtiposition, innuendo, omission, and just plan untruths, told the public the following. That the age verification service was "the largest commercial child porn operation in the history of the United States." That the age verification service was itself the "child porn operation" and that the Reedys were "child pornographers." That the 250,000 subscribers to the age verification service were child porn purchasers. That the 100 people entrapped by the Feebs had purchased child porn from the Reedys' operation. That all the revenues of the age verification service were from child porn. That the government had just "shut down a gigantic child porn ring and arrested its users." In reality, the Reedy case was by then old news, and the arrests of people the Feebs had entrapped had happened slowly over the prior two years. The press, which had originally told some the truth about the case, now simply began reprinting Ashcroft's press releases... Here's one such story... I will correct the more blatant lies in []. ----- Texas Couple Convicted in Porn Case [suggestion that all of this is breaking news] By DAVID KOENIG Associated Press Writer August 9, 2001 DALLAS -- Thomas and Janice Reedy lived in an upscale Fort Worth neighborhood where neighbors say they threw all-night pool parties and where luxury cars would pull into their half-moon driveway at all hours of the night. They told neighbors they were in the computer business, which was partly true: They sold access to child pornography on Internet sites with names like "Cyber Lolita" and "Child Rape." [They sold age verification codes, anyone could sign up as a webmaster, and they did not police content. Only two of over 5,000 adult sites that used their service contained material illegal in the United States.] Authorities say it was an international operation with 250,000 subscribers that grossed as much as $1.4 million a month. [All the age verification subscribers, and the total revenues of the business, now magically become the numbers for the "child porn ring.] This week, the Reedys were sentenced to prison for conspiracy to distribute and possess child pornography [Conspiracy is the usual way the Feebs proceed when they don't have an actual case based on evidence you committed the crime in question.] On Wednesday, authorities announced the arrests of 100 of the couple's subscribers in what they called the largest child-pornography business discovered in the United States. [The 100 people were independently trolled by the Feebs to buy Feeb-produced child porn. This had nothing to do with the Reedys' operation, or the two foreign websites, apart from the Feebs stealing the Reedys' customer list.] "This is the worst kind of exploitation," said Ruben Rodriguez, a director at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "To think of the image of child pornography _ a child is being molested, raped, abused. You're allowing people to pay to look at this victimization of a child." [And now a word from NCMEC, a pseudo-governmental organization, founded by the Department of Justice, and run by Ernie Allen, a close ideological associate of both Ed Meese and convicted criminal and child abuser Mike Echols.] The Reedys' attorneys call them victims of an overzealous government. [The attorney better watch out. The Feebs will get him next.] Susie Boese, who lives next door to the Reedys' former Fort Worth home, said Mrs. Reedy's young daughter spent a lot of time with her children. [A not-so-subtle attempt to suggest that the children of neighbors were in some sort of danger by being in the same community with the evil Satanic age verification server.] When the investigation heated up, the Reedys left Fort Worth for a small home in nearby Lake Worth. They were arrested in April 2000. In court, Mrs. Reedy, 32, testified that she met Thomas Reedy, 37, in South Texas and moved to Fort Worth in 1997 with her daughter, who was then 6. [Oh look, a paragraph of truth tossed in to confuse us.] He was already working on a start-up Internet company, Landslide Inc. Mrs. Reedy was trained to keep the company's books. She testified that she saw offensive-sounding names of Web sites, but a woman training her in 1997 told her to ignore them. "She said, 'Don't worry. They're just names. They don't mean anything,"' she testified. [Since Mrs. Reedy is a woman, she of course is a "victim" too] For more than two years, Mrs. Reedy charged users a fee to view sexually explicit sites, kept 40 percent of the money and sent 60 percent to Webmasters in Indonesia and Russia. She said she learned the sites contained child pornography when a former employee tipped her off in 1999. [By now, the reader will believe that "sexually explicit sites" refers only to the "child porn operation." And that the two webmasters in Russia and Indonesia, out of over 5,000, constituted the Reedys' only business associates.] "I went to my husband, and he said he had contacted the FBI and it was all being handled," Mrs. Reedy said. Less than a month later, police raided the business. [Some people are actually dumb enough to think that if they contact the FBI about child porn, they won't make themselves targets.] Thomas Reedy didn't testify during the five-day trial in federal court in Fort Worth. His wife was the last defense witness. The couple argues they were merely collecting money for other businesses. [A fact, namely that they only ran an age verification service, is impuned in the mind of the reader by not being simply stated, but labeled as something "argued" by the now-convicted "criminals." Attorney Steven Rozan, who is preparing their appeal, said the Reedys are victims -- Reedy was sentenced to life in prison and his wife received 14 years. "To lose 10 years of a person's life in prison is a helluva lot for a crime that doesn't involve death, doesn't involve maiming, but is basically a cybercrime," Rozan said. "These people were basically ticket takers." Investigators didn't believe Mrs. Reedy's claim to be ignorant of the child pornography. [It doesn't matter if the Reedys knew there was child porn on a few websites, if they were not responsible for content. Most ISPs know there is child porn on their news servers. That doesn't make them a child porn ring. Charging for access doesn't make them the madams of a child porn bordello.] Ron Eddins, who helped prosecute the case, said Mrs. Reedy exchanged e-mail messages with foreign Webmasters about irate customers who complained they weren't getting all they paid for. "The Reedys marketed adult-porn sites and kiddie-porn sites. They charged more for the kiddie porn," Paul Coggins, who was U.S. attorney at the time, said Wednesday. [The Feebs are allowed to spin the Reedys' customer service email. Who knows what the actual messages said, or how many of them there were.] After raiding the Reedys' business, undercover agents took over the Landslide Web site and contacted its users. When subscribers ordered child pornography delivered to their homes, agents moved in. Investigators focused on the most egregious U.S. offenders, authorities said. [Again, the suggestion that all 250,000 customers of the age verification service were child porn purchasers, and that the Feebs, rather than simply stealing a customer list for an independent entrapment effort, somehow "took over" an existing child porn operation.] Among those arrested: a computer consultant from North Carolina accused of producing videos depicting abuse of young girls, including a 4-year-old; and a West Virginia man who worked at a psychiatric hospital for sexually abused children. [Lying by juxtiposition. None of this individual's cited activities had anything to do with the Reedys' business. The Feebs are simply looking for subscribers with outrageous unrelated criminal records, to make the story sound more sleezy.] Most of the Reedys' Lake Worth neighbors said they didn't learn of the couple's activities until they saw Attorney General John Ashcroft talking about the case on television Wednesday. "It kind of puts an eerie feeling in you when you know it's that close to you," said neighbor Kenneth Franklin, whose young granddaughters are often at his home. "We were totally unaware." [And what smear would be complete without the finishing touch of interviewing the smearee's neighbors so they can be quoted saying how "shocked" they are.] -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Thu Aug 9 14:02:32 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:02:32 -0700 Subject: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft Message-ID: <20010809210232.AAA24148+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa. us> Someone's funding must be up for review, because the by now extremely old Reedy case has magically appeared on all newspaper front pages this morning with headlines like "Feds Bust Gigantic Child Porn Ring." Odd, since we've been discussing the case since April 15th, 2000, around the time the Feebs raided and shut down the Reedys' servers. To recap, Thomas and Janice Reedy ran a popular age verification service, which offered the AVS and KeyZ codes to 250,000 subscribers who could then access over 5,000 adult sites. Typically, an age verification service will keep some of this money, and give another part of it to the sites that you visit. Anyone could sign up to be a webmaster under the program, and the Reedys were assured by their lawyers that they were not responsible for content. The service prospered, and the Reedys lived very comfortably. Well, apparently an enormous TWO of the adult sites in question, located in the non-internet-porn regulating jurisdictions of Russia and Indonesia, offered material featuring people under the age of 18, which was illegal in the United States, and the bowels of the governmental child-protectors were soon in a gigantic uproar. Now the Feebs are very careful never to prosecute a child porn case they are not absolutely sure of winning, because they want to push the envelope in their desired direction, and not end up with precedents and case law where their doctrine is reversed. Holding an age verification service accountable for two of over 5,000 sites located in a foreign jurisdiction had never been done before. Still, this is America where all the papers will print whatever outrageous bullshit the government says about child porn, without questioning it. So lead prosecutor Terri Moore, a woman in love with the Sex Abuse Agenda, who can rattle off adjectives like "chilling", "frightening", and "feeding the hunger of pedophiles," at breathtaking speed, decided to prosecute the case. Armed with a 87 count indictment from a secret grand jury (the favorite rubber stamp of prosecutors), and comments from other Sex Abuse Agenda proponents like Parry Aftab, who compared the age verification service to the World Trade Center bombing, Ms. Moore put her assault vagina in gear, and headed to the courtroom. Lost in the shuffle were the 250,000 holders of the AVS and KeyZ codes, who found them worthless after the Reedys' servers were seized, and were damn pissed they had been collectively cheated out of millions of dollars. The over 5,000 Adult Webmasters offering perfectly legal porn were also less than amused. The trial was a circus of metaphors, with the Reedys being compared to the madam of a whorehouse prostituting helpless little children. In the end, the jury bought the performance, and returned a guilty verdict. The Feebs had pushed the envelope even further, and age verification services were now responsible for the content of all Web sites that used their codes. Thomas Reedy got life, even though he had never produced a single piece of child porn. His wife got a lesser sentence. But the Feebs were not done yet. They had conducted a sting operation, over a period of two years, trying to induce people to purchase child porn videos, CD-ROMs, and magazines, and had incorporated the Reedys' list of 250,000 age verification service subscribers into the hunt. In the end, when they went public, they had gotten an astounding 144 search warrants, and made an absolutely unbelievable 100 arrests. Bear in mind the Feebs had never brought charges against anyone for having visited one of the two alleged child porn sites. All the arrests were people the Feebs had independently trolled to buy material offered by the government, completely apart from the Reedys' operation. But that was only the beginning of the lying. The government propaganda machine spun into full gear, and newspapers began to write stories which by the usual mixture of juxtiposition, innuendo, omission, and just plan untruths, told the public the following. That the age verification service was "the largest commercial child porn operation in the history of the United States." That the age verification service was itself the "child porn operation" and that the Reedys were "child pornographers." That the 250,000 subscribers to the age verification service were child porn purchasers. That the 100 people entrapped by the Feebs had purchased child porn from the Reedys' operation. That all the revenues of the age verification service were from child porn. That the government had just "shut down a gigantic child porn ring and arrested its users." In reality, the Reedy case was by then old news, and the arrests of people the Feebs had entrapped had happened slowly over the prior two years. The press, which had originally told some the truth about the case, now simply began reprinting Ashcroft's press releases... Here's one such story... I will correct the more blatant lies in []. ----- Texas Couple Convicted in Porn Case [suggestion that all of this is breaking news] By DAVID KOENIG Associated Press Writer August 9, 2001 DALLAS -- Thomas and Janice Reedy lived in an upscale Fort Worth neighborhood where neighbors say they threw all-night pool parties and where luxury cars would pull into their half-moon driveway at all hours of the night. They told neighbors they were in the computer business, which was partly true: They sold access to child pornography on Internet sites with names like "Cyber Lolita" and "Child Rape." [They sold age verification codes, anyone could sign up as a webmaster, and they did not police content. Only two of over 5,000 adult sites that used their service contained material illegal in the United States.] Authorities say it was an international operation with 250,000 subscribers that grossed as much as $1.4 million a month. [All the age verification subscribers, and the total revenues of the business, now magically become the numbers for the "child porn ring.] This week, the Reedys were sentenced to prison for conspiracy to distribute and possess child pornography [Conspiracy is the usual way the Feebs proceed when they don't have an actual case based on evidence you committed the crime in question.] On Wednesday, authorities announced the arrests of 100 of the couple's subscribers in what they called the largest child-pornography business discovered in the United States. [The 100 people were independently trolled by the Feebs to buy Feeb-produced child porn. This had nothing to do with the Reedys' operation, or the two foreign websites, apart from the Feebs stealing the Reedys' customer list.] "This is the worst kind of exploitation," said Ruben Rodriguez, a director at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "To think of the image of child pornography _ a child is being molested, raped, abused. You're allowing people to pay to look at this victimization of a child." [And now a word from NCMEC, a pseudo-governmental organization, founded by the Department of Justice, and run by Ernie Allen, a close ideological associate of both Ed Meese and convicted criminal and child abuser Mike Echols.] The Reedys' attorneys call them victims of an overzealous government. [The attorney better watch out. The Feebs will get him next.] Susie Boese, who lives next door to the Reedys' former Fort Worth home, said Mrs. Reedy's young daughter spent a lot of time with her children. [A not-so-subtle attempt to suggest that the children of neighbors were in some sort of danger by being in the same community with the evil Satanic age verification server.] When the investigation heated up, the Reedys left Fort Worth for a small home in nearby Lake Worth. They were arrested in April 2000. In court, Mrs. Reedy, 32, testified that she met Thomas Reedy, 37, in South Texas and moved to Fort Worth in 1997 with her daughter, who was then 6. [Oh look, a paragraph of truth tossed in to confuse us.] He was already working on a start-up Internet company, Landslide Inc. Mrs. Reedy was trained to keep the company's books. She testified that she saw offensive-sounding names of Web sites, but a woman training her in 1997 told her to ignore them. "She said, 'Don't worry. They're just names. They don't mean anything,"' she testified. [Since Mrs. Reedy is a woman, she of course is a "victim" too] For more than two years, Mrs. Reedy charged users a fee to view sexually explicit sites, kept 40 percent of the money and sent 60 percent to Webmasters in Indonesia and Russia. She said she learned the sites contained child pornography when a former employee tipped her off in 1999. [By now, the reader will believe that "sexually explicit sites" refers only to the "child porn operation." And that the two webmasters in Russia and Indonesia, out of over 5,000, constituted the Reedys' only business associates.] "I went to my husband, and he said he had contacted the FBI and it was all being handled," Mrs. Reedy said. Less than a month later, police raided the business. [Some people are actually dumb enough to think that if they contact the FBI about child porn, they won't make themselves targets.] Thomas Reedy didn't testify during the five-day trial in federal court in Fort Worth. His wife was the last defense witness. The couple argues they were merely collecting money for other businesses. [A fact, namely that they only ran an age verification service, is impuned in the mind of the reader by not being simply stated, but labeled as something "argued" by the now-convicted "criminals." Attorney Steven Rozan, who is preparing their appeal, said the Reedys are victims -- Reedy was sentenced to life in prison and his wife received 14 years. "To lose 10 years of a person's life in prison is a helluva lot for a crime that doesn't involve death, doesn't involve maiming, but is basically a cybercrime," Rozan said. "These people were basically ticket takers." Investigators didn't believe Mrs. Reedy's claim to be ignorant of the child pornography. [It doesn't matter if the Reedys knew there was child porn on a few websites, if they were not responsible for content. Most ISPs know there is child porn on their news servers. That doesn't make them a child porn ring. Charging for access doesn't make them the madams of a child porn bordello.] Ron Eddins, who helped prosecute the case, said Mrs. Reedy exchanged e-mail messages with foreign Webmasters about irate customers who complained they weren't getting all they paid for. "The Reedys marketed adult-porn sites and kiddie-porn sites. They charged more for the kiddie porn," Paul Coggins, who was U.S. attorney at the time, said Wednesday. [The Feebs are allowed to spin the Reedys' customer service email. Who knows what the actual messages said, or how many of them there were.] After raiding the Reedys' business, undercover agents took over the Landslide Web site and contacted its users. When subscribers ordered child pornography delivered to their homes, agents moved in. Investigators focused on the most egregious U.S. offenders, authorities said. [Again, the suggestion that all 250,000 customers of the age verification service were child porn purchasers, and that the Feebs, rather than simply stealing a customer list for an independent entrapment effort, somehow "took over" an existing child porn operation.] Among those arrested: a computer consultant from North Carolina accused of producing videos depicting abuse of young girls, including a 4-year-old; and a West Virginia man who worked at a psychiatric hospital for sexually abused children. [Lying by juxtiposition. None of this individual's cited activities had anything to do with the Reedys' business. The Feebs are simply looking for subscribers with outrageous unrelated criminal records, to make the story sound more sleezy.] Most of the Reedys' Lake Worth neighbors said they didn't learn of the couple's activities until they saw Attorney General John Ashcroft talking about the case on television Wednesday. "It kind of puts an eerie feeling in you when you know it's that close to you," said neighbor Kenneth Franklin, whose young granddaughters are often at his home. "We were totally unaware." [And what smear would be complete without the finishing touch of interviewing the smearee's neighbors so they can be quoted saying how "shocked" they are.] -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From declan at well.com Thu Aug 9 11:05:06 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:05:06 -0400 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010809101855.007e9a30@pop.sprynet.com> References: <20010808195231.A23427@cluebot.com> <3B70B957.63D2C2B@ameritech.net> <3B70B957.63D2C2B@ameritech.net> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010809140337.024caec0@mail.well.com> At 10:18 AM 8/9/01 -0700, David Honig wrote: >The difference is that now the feds have to trust a judge with no >security clearance/experience not to accidentally spill the beans. Huh? Judges accept things under seal all the time. Wiretap orders, for instance. The complaint in the Sklyarov case, for another. The judiciary has even has fairly in-depth internal security procedures (I quoted from some in recent Wired articles on Scarfo) triggered when certain classified document cases come up. -Declan From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 9 14:05:25 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:05:25 -0700 Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? In-Reply-To: <20010809181420.638.qmail@sidereal.kz> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010809140525.007e92d0@pop.sprynet.com> At 06:14 PM 8/9/01 -0000, Dr. Evil wrote: >http://www.sidereal.kz/~drevil/anti-ocr.png If the letters were *overlapping* it would be *much* tougher to parse. The computation is just addition. Plus you don't waste all that kerning space :-) Jittering the baseline would also help. Eventually you can sell your barely-readable font to _Wired_ From bear at sonic.net Thu Aug 9 14:07:43 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Keylogger detection In-Reply-To: <88974177e660a0c3e89888dca462bffc@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, A. Melon wrote: > What is needed, seriously needed right now, is some good, open source >surveillance dectection software. Something that would find key-logger >software or hardware, something that would check your phone line thru >your modem, maybe even could be used as a frequency analyzer with a >usb or serial port "antenna" connection for laptops. > I'm sure this would be a really good commercial hit. >Especially if the price could be kept under $500. > A hardware keylogger doesn't exist in software and cannot be detected in software. A software keylogger will be somewhere on the interrupt chain that handles keystrokes, if it exists independently. This is *THE* spot where it would have to be planted for maximum coverage of all keystrokes starting right after bootup, and ought to be easy to detect. However, in both xwindows and microsoft windows, there are higher-level key handling routines that have 'hooks' which something can be attached to so that one application can detect keystrokes directed to another. These constitute independent sequences that would have to be checked, and that would be a bit harder. Bear From ashwood at msn.com Thu Aug 9 12:09:41 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:09:41 -0500 Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? References: Message-ID: <015f01c12107$577d4640$0ac0b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Dillinger" To: "Matt Beland" Cc: Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 3:53 PM Subject: CDR: Re: peer to peer wireless WAN? > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Matt Beland wrote: > > >802.11b, 11Mb/sec, up to 15 mile range with the right > >antennae, no licensing costs. Sound good enough? > > Obviously not. Have you even been reading the news lately? > > Although fixing the 802.11b protocol might be a good cypherpunkish > undertaking (for those who still write code). 802.11c, anyone? > > It looks like it ought to be pretty simple. Just substitute AES > for RC4 and go. The problem as usual is key distribution. > > Bear Easier solution. Screw the 802.11 security. Run TCP/IP over it and use IPsec. Magically the thing is now reasonably secure, without having to mess around with redesign, just leave everything as is. Joe From amaha at vsnl.net Thu Aug 9 12:20:50 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:20:50 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108091920.f79JKnk05144@ak47.algebra.com> From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 9 11:26:27 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 00:05:30 Faustine wrote: Jim wrote: >>The idea has been around, but not the free software from Sandia. > The idea has been around and so has software and not just from Sandia. > The Scyld cluster software costs $2 for non-commercial use and is > widely used. The technology is advancing very quickly, for instance > Avalon at LANL came in 113 on the Top500 in 11/98 at 48 gigaflops. > Systems with say 64 Athlon processors and doing roughly 75-80 gigaflops > are available pre-built or can be and are constructed by a wide variety > of universities and corporations (check out the Beowulf list to get an > idea of the range of applications and the number of large clusters out > there). There are many application of cypherpunk-interest for this > sort of cheap computing power. Unfortunately crypto probably isn't one > of them. It is far easier to increase the size of the key than to > scale up the processing power in a meaningful way. Until far more > efficient factoring algorithms are found the math will insure this > remains the case. Yep. I just thought people might appreciate the link. I'd be interested to hear from anyone actually running the Cplant to see how it stacks up with the other programs out there.. I'll save it for another list, I suppose. >>Never said it was. 50? try 512. >>> You never know what might come from putting that kind of >>> computational power in the hands of people here. Create, break, do >>> whatever you want. > The technology is potentially revolutionary in many areas of interest > to cypherpunks but factoring large numbers is so hard and it is so easy > to increase the size of keys that crypto will easily stay ahead of the > Beowulf technology. My phrase "interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications" wasn't by any means referring to factoring alone. >Now if someone had a working quantum computer that > might be a different story. I wouldn't rule anything out just yet! Fascinating stuff. And as for the problem of it being hard to round up enough Pentiums, plenty of businesses upgrading their systems might be willing to donate their old boxes to your "good cause" if you find a convincing way to explain what you're trying to do. I've been toying with the idea myself on and off for awhile: the idea of having your own supercomputer in your basement that you put together yourself out of next-to-nothing is just so appealing! Oh well, thanks for the links. ~Faustine. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 9 12:55:47 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:55:47 -0500 Subject: INTERCEPT THIS. Message-ID: Somebody offlist flipped my "internet rant generator." I will not stoop to respond to this snoopy, low-life, lapdog, cog-in-the-wheel directly, (and the high-and-mighty &^%$#!@ denied me the opportunity). So, please excuse me.... ---- "The issue in this case is clouded and concealed by the very discussion of it in legalistic terms. What the ancients knew as 'eavesdropping,' we now call 'electronic surveillance'; but to equate the two is to treat man's first gunpowder on the same level as the nuclear bomb. Electronic surveillance is the greatest leveler of human privacy ever known. How most forms of it can be held 'reasonable' within the Fourth Amendment is a mystery." --- Justice Douglas, dissenting, United States v. White, 401 US. 745 (1971). ---- A keystroke is not a mere physical action - it is a contemporaneous reflection of what is going on in your head. It is the contemporaneous interception of mental processes. I am not just "typing," I am thinking. A keystroke logger is akin to another recording device that is restricted for these very reasons: the polygraph. The ability to compose one's thoughts through writing, in private, should be an inviolable sanctuary. The law enforcement interest in garnering a passphrase to decrypt for the most heinous of criminal purposes pales in comparison to the importance of forever precluding the government from intruding on the genesis of human achievement at the sacred moment of its inception: taking your thoughts to the written word. As always, if they want it, they can come seize it, or intercept it. Interception and seizure always was about giving the government an opportunity to "get it." You took a risk by creating and having a document in your possession for a meaningful length of time - at least SOME length of time, or by "speaking your mind." Today, we press "SEND." You subjected your thoughts or words to a meaningful exposure. Now, because of a "passphrase," the government would have the act of merely putting a pen to paper to construct your thoughts require a similar act of courage. Yes, what you write is subject to seizure. Still, there is an important distinction. Surely, some drafts of constitutional provisions ended up in the embers of a fire, and we will never know the thoughts of the author that were penned and destroyed in private. To James Madison, a keystroke logger would look like a "tattletale quill." Had there been "tattletale quills" back then, I wouldn't be ranting about Scarfo, because we would have ever been afforded the protections the Constitution. The thoughts leading to the Fourth Amendment would have never seen parchment. Nor would have The Federalist Papers seen ink. The Crown would have interloped between the men and their manuscripts. Do you not realize the nature of this invasion! The government just turned a man's writing utensil into a wired government informant! How can a fair construction of the Fourth Amendment subject every American to question the trustworthiness of their pen? To have your pen as a contemporaneous witness against yourself? We must preserve as inviolate what little remains of that same sanctity between pen and paper that the Founders had when they framed their thoughts. The sanctity I speak of is that "sense of security" in knowing that you have the opportunity, no matter how brief or illusory, to consider your words before rendering them available to the senses of others. That is the wellspring of thought. Furthermore, are you not entitled to the same forgiving fire James Madison had, should you be able to fairly avail yourself of it? Think of the great thought that would never have been -- but for handy fires, and that _moment_ of sanctum when a man's pen hits his paper. At that moment, the historic* meanings of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't "run almost into each other," as in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), they collide. "Ways may some day be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate conveyances of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions.... -- Justice Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). ~Aimee *Emphasis on historic. From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 9 14:56:20 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:56:20 -0700 Subject: Evolution is a mother. Message-ID: <3B730704.89B6B4AE@lsil.com> On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote : >On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: > >>On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >> >>> RSW gives excellent advice. Bear in mind : the larger the batch the >>> easier it will be to keep it hot... >> >>I recommend organic peroxides. Preferably, large quantities thereof, >>suddenly heated in closed vessels made from specific metals. Excellently >>suitable for beginner pyrotechnicians. >> > >Hmmm. Sooner or later, some idjit is going to try some of this stuff. >Evolution is going to happen, which may be a good thing, but people >who gave specific tips on how to speed it up, may be blamed for it. > >If someone was looking for an excuse to arrest someone or make a life >inconvenient, a little evolution happening offstage might provide such >an excuse. > > Bear > Quite a stretch don't you think to punish sarcasm? It would be good to track one of these stupid requests right back to its protein. Mike From pzakas at toucancapital.com Thu Aug 9 11:57:05 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:57:05 -0400 Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? In-Reply-To: <20010809080833.11532.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: From envoymail at 1stnetmail.com Thu Aug 9 14:58:08 2001 From: envoymail at 1stnetmail.com (G R I D P I C K S) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:58:08 (GMT) Subject: FOOTBALL - Hot site, check it out Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4944 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hseaver at ameritech.net Thu Aug 9 13:14:22 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 15:14:22 -0500 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia References: <200108091917.f79JHt511283@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B72EF1B.D0278D1F@ameritech.net> Also it's highly recommended to use dual cpu motherboards for building clusters, which doubles your processing power w/o adding much at all to the electric bill. But you probably are over estimating the power needs -- you don't need the drives or video or soundcards, so you dump those. When I build mine, I'm going to also get rid of the individual PS as well, use DC/DC converters and a central PS running it all off a 12v battery bank hopefully solar powered. Sure, for a university or business, clustering the already available desktop boxes would be the way to go (at least if you had a linux lab), but having even 4 dual 1ghz motherboards would be a fun toy. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 9 15:15:48 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 15:15:48 -0700 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique References: <3.0.6.32.20010809140012.007ebe00@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3B730B94.178DA957@lsil.com> David Honig wrote: > > At 11:43 AM 8/9/01 -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > >David Honig wrote : > >> > >>The difference is that now the feds have to trust a judge with no > >>security clearance/experience not to accidentally spill the beans. > >> > >Don't hold your breath. I doubt that they used anything that has not > >been the subject of speculation here. > > > >Mike > > Yes, but it would resolve whether software could find the trojan > or whether you have to check your cables for extra lumps. > So if it is SW and you write some little ring 0 code that repeatedly walks the chain from the kyb input to your apps you'll feel safe? You're assuming a one trick pony in a static world. Mike From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 9 15:23:05 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:23:05 -0700 Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108092223.f79MNM513113@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 01:55 PM, Trei, Peter wrote: > Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards > an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the > contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as > inviolate, > as the contents of our heads. > > To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, > our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively > feel they should be just as intimately held. > > We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of > knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at > the > time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of > accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' > rather than 'memories'. I agree with your sentiments, but not where I think you are going with this. Importantly, there is nothing in the Constitution about "memories" have special protection. There is "secure in one's papers and possessions," there is language about under what conditions a person may be compelled to testify, but there is no special protection or language about "memories." And I think writings on a computer are no more special than writings in journals and letters and personal papers. Many of the Founders and their contemporaries were _prodigious_ writers, generating thousands of notes and letters a year. Many were ardent diarists. They would agree, I'm sure, with our current revulsion for having fishing expeditions where the King's men root around in papers looking for thoughtcrimes and evidence of conspiracies. I'm not a historian, but I don't recall hearing about many "take all of the papers and diaries in the house" raids on people in the 1800s. Most court cases were about alleged actual crimes, not thoughtcrimes. (Perhaps during the persecution of the Mormons in Missouri there were zealous prosecutors and judges who ordered all papers sifted through. As I said, I'm not a historian.) It seems that it was this past century that political crimes, thoughtcrimes like Debs being jailed for talking about the draft being bad, became so central to our corrupt legal system. The search for communists, dissidents, and troublemakers. This was paralleled by trends in "discovery." In the past 20 years it has become routine for lawyers to demand every scrap of paper of any conceivable relevance, whether in a divorce case or an antitrust case. (This is why IBM, Microsoft, Intel and other companies shred so many records.) Then we had the War on (Some) Drugs, the seizures of property, the Steve Jackson Games case (where _every_ computer and disk drive was dumped in the back of a truck and hauled away. It's as if someone accused of a minor crime in 1820 were to have his diaries and papers and all of his books taken away for later scrutinizing. And it could have happened in 1820, had the people allowed it. The problem is not that "memories" are being seized. The problem is that "secure in one's papers and possessions" has become a joke, a null and void idea. The solution is pretty obvious to most liberty-minded folks: 1) End the War on (Some) Drugs. This will eliminate most trafficking, distribution, money laundering, and gang war crimes. 2) Nix the idea that a simple search warrant means the contents of a house or office can be carted away. (The Founders would have been shocked at how easy it now is to get a search warrant.) 3) Return to the concept that a search warrant is to be _presented_ to the target of the warrant. There are very few cases where secret searches are needed, once drug crimes and "conspiracies" are interpreted less broadly. 4) Require that _judges_ who issue secret search warrants disclose them after some amount of time. This takes it out of the hands of the FBI to disclose such warrants. Perhaps have a judge supervised by a more senior judge, who monitors compliance. 5) Fewer things criminal, but punish real crimes harshly. Instead of letting an arsonist off with a stern lecture while putting a kid selling blotter acid at a Dead concert in prison for 10 years, don't prosecute the kid and kill the arsonist. For thieves, put them on a work gang for several years. For murderers and rapists (real rapists, not Wimmin's Lib victims), kill them. 6) For cops found guilty of inserting toilet plungers into detainees, kill them. 7) For those involved in burning the Waco compound, kill them. And so on. But stop manufacturing police state thoughtcrimes and then using the courts to rubber-stamp hunting expeditions for more crimes revealed in papers and diaries and computer discs. --Tim May From nikhil_a at yahoo.com Thu Aug 9 03:09:38 2001 From: nikhil_a at yahoo.com (Nikhil Agrawal) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:39:38 +0530 Subject: regarding e mail database. Message-ID: <000801c120be$8ee60980$228a09ca@visjit> Dear Sir/madam, I have 2 E-mail databases which I want to sell. The first database consists of 1,20,000 E-mail addresses. In this database I only have the E- mail addresses and no other information of the person to whom it belongs to, not even the name. The second database consists of 2000 E-mail addresses along with a lot of details like name, age, sex, hobbies, address, phone No.,etc. If you are interested in the database please mail me back. Thanking you, and expecting a reply from you on a positive note. yours truly. Nikhil Agrawal -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1613 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim_windle at eudoramail.com Thu Aug 9 12:41:49 2001 From: jim_windle at eudoramail.com (Jim Windle) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 15:41:49 -0400 Subject: OT: Happy Fun Ball (Court) Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:46:53 Trei, Peter wrote: > >(American products often come >with ludicrously detailed warnings and disclaimers, due >to our corrupt legal system) My current favorite, which I noticed on my hand held hair dryer recently warns among other things not to use the dryer while bathing. It seems to me that the manufacturer should be liable for the damages to the rest of us caused by any person who is prevented from removing him or herself from the gene pool by using a blow dryer while bathing. This should also apply to that persons descendants. Triple damages if that person or any descendant is elected to any legislative body. Jim Windle Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From envoymail at 1stnetmail.com Thu Aug 9 16:06:14 2001 From: envoymail at 1stnetmail.com (G R I D P I C K S . C O M) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:06:14 (GMT) Subject: FOOTBALL - Hot site, check it out Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4944 bytes Desc: not available URL: From georgemw at speakeasy.net Thu Aug 9 16:23:03 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:23:03 -0700 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010809170241.02147920@mail.well.com> References: Message-ID: <3B72B8E7.7894.1BCA344@localhost> On 9 Aug 2001, at 17:03, Declan McCullagh wrote: > At 01:58 PM 8/9/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: > >I should hope that if the bugging technology is materially relevant > >in the legal findings, it would have to be entered into evidence and > >available for review by defense attorneys etc. Wasn't there a "right > >to be presented with all evidence against" somewhere in there? > > You should read the judge's order, available at epic.org. The report on the > tech is not what will be submitted under seal. > > -Declan > > Worth reading, I particularly liked the quote, "In fact, in reviewing Exhibit I of the government's opposition brief, its contents are in the truest sense 'gobbledygook'." I might actually like this judge! Here's the URL: http://www2.epic.org/crypto/scarfo/order_8_7_01.pdf George From info at giganetstore.com Thu Aug 9 08:23:28 2001 From: info at giganetstore.com (info at giganetstore.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:23:28 +0100 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Leiloes_ao_pre=E7o_da_banana?= Message-ID: <0daf82823150981WWWSHOPENS@wwwshopens.giganetstore.com> Os leilões ao preço da Banana no Gigaleilão.com.pt Não perca estas oportunidades... Jogo Diablo II para PC Diablo II, a sequela do mais aclamado sucesso de todos os tempos. Compre já! Fecho 14/08 15:00 Base de licitação 1.900$ Impressora HP 840C impressora deskjet com a qualidade fotográfica que os seus projectos pessoais merecem! Fecho 14/08 15:00 Base de licitação 19.900$ Scanner HP 3300 Digitaliza numa única passagem e numa só exposição, a cores e monocromático. Não perca esta oportunidade! Fecho 14/08 15:00 Base de licitação 9.900$ O Mundo Perdido - Jurassic Park - DVD Parque Jurássico, o Mundo Perdido é a espectacular continuação, ainda com mais dinossauros. Fecho 14/08 15:00 Base de licitação 1.900$ E muito mais... em www.gigaleilao.com.pt . O novo serviço de leilões da giganetstore.com inédito e inovador no mercado online português. Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http:\\www.giganetstore.com , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços. Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list clique em Retirar Mail -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5383 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randy at gte.net Thu Aug 9 13:44:28 2001 From: randy at gte.net (randy) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:44:28 -0400 Subject: OT: Happy Fun Ball (Court) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010809163300.023f35c0@mail.gte.net> Correction: Happy Fun Ball well predates US military action re: Saudi Arabia/Iraq, and is, in fact, the handiwork of none other than Jack Handey. One example of his work is here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tldpinto/Humor/handeytalk.html Randy You wrote: >As a public service, I'd thought I'd explain for our >foreign (or just younger) subscribers the root reference >of 'Happy Fun Court'. >The American comedy show Saturday Night Live >usually runs 1-2 fake ads per show. Some are better >than others. In 1990, one ad showed smiling children >playing with their 'Happy Fun Balls'. At the end, the >ad ran a disclaimer (American products often come >with ludicrously detailed warnings and disclaimers, due >to our corrupt legal system). It read: >-------------------------------------- >Happy FUN BALL! >-only $14.95- >Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly and children under 10 should avoid >prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball. >Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds. >Happy Fun Ball Contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to >rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at. >Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete. >Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs: >Itching >Vertigo >Dizziness >Tingling in extremities >Loss of balance or coordination >Slurred speech >Temporary blindness >Profuse sweating >Heart palpitations >If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter >and cover head. >Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin. >When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special >container and kept under refrigeration... >Failure to do so relieves the makers of Happy Fun Ball, Wacky Products >Incorporated, and its parent company Global Chemical >Unlimited, of any and all liability. >Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an unknown glowing substance >which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space. >Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is >also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq. >Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. >Happy Fun Ball comes with a lifetime guarantee. >Happy Fun Ball >ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES! From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 9 14:46:55 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:46:55 -0500 Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Trei wrote: > Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards > an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the > contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as inviolate, > as the contents of our heads. > To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, > our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively > feel they should be just as intimately held. > > We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of > knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at the > time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of > accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' > rather than 'memories'. > > This disjuncture between how we feel about our private data, and > how the powers that be treat it, is one basis for a major thread of > discussion on cypherpunks and other lists - how one can store one's > own personal data in a way which makes it accessible to oneself, > and only to oneself. > > Being forced to turn over one's most intimate thoughts knownlege, > and plans, simply because they are outside of one' skull, is a rape > of the mind, and a violation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment. As to your first point, not exactly, I was trying to distinguish something THIS SNAKE said, and the entire basis of his law-oriented argument: "no difference/same data/no intercept" -- I think the moment is important because of the sense of security we have at THAT moment is an extreme interest. Is the interception requirement just a result the technology from our telephone wire past? It would seem the moment of genesis is even more sacred, not less. You went farther into the 5th/mental processes, and I don't know that anybody has put it so well. I replied to your points individually, but felt like I was being inconsiderate of your thoughts in breaking them up. Certainly words this most-high individual should hear. Cypherpunks should reply to Scarfo EN BLOC. I know it's "old news" to you old dogs, but it isn't to everybody else. Your words do travel. You are 10 ahead of the public agenda. Or, you used to be. "The agenda" appears to be catching up with you. ~Aimee From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 9 13:55:37 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:55:37 -0400 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia Message-ID: > Harmon Seaver[SMTP:hseaver at ameritech.net] wrote: > Also it's highly recommended to use dual cpu motherboards for > building clusters, which doubles your processing power w/o adding much > at all to the electric bill. But you probably are over estimating the > power needs -- you don't need the drives or video or soundcards, so you > dump those. When I build mine, I'm going to also get rid of the > individual PS as well, use DC/DC converters and a central PS running it > all off a 12v battery bank hopefully solar powered. > Sure, for a university or business, clustering the already > available desktop boxes would be the way to go (at least if you had a > linux lab), but having even 4 dual 1ghz motherboards would be a fun toy. > > Harmon Seaver, MLIS > Also check out http://www.sciam.com/2001/0801issue/0801hargrove.html for a good article on Linux clusters. Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 9 13:55:41 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:55:41 -0400 Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] Message-ID: > Aimee Farr[SMTP:aimee.farr at pobox.com] writes [lots of good rant deleted] > The ability to compose one's thoughts through writing, in private, should > be > an inviolable sanctuary. The law enforcement interest in garnering a > passphrase to decrypt for the most heinous of criminal purposes pales in > comparison to the importance of forever precluding the government from > intruding on the genesis of human achievement at the sacred moment of its > inception: taking your thoughts to the written word. [even more good rant deleted] Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as inviolate, as the contents of our heads. To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively feel they should be just as intimately held. We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' rather than 'memories'. This disjuncture between how we feel about our private data, and how the powers that be treat it, is one basis for a major thread of discussion on cypherpunks and other lists - how one can store one's own personal data in a way which makes it accessible to oneself, and only to oneself. Being forced to turn over one's most intimate thoughts knownlege, and plans, simply because they are outside of one' skull, is a rape of the mind, and a violation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment. Peter Trei From declan at well.com Thu Aug 9 14:03:44 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 17:03:44 -0400 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010809140337.024caec0@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010809170241.02147920@mail.well.com> At 01:58 PM 8/9/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >I should hope that if the bugging technology is materially relevant >in the legal findings, it would have to be entered into evidence and >available for review by defense attorneys etc. Wasn't there a "right >to be presented with all evidence against" somewhere in there? You should read the judge's order, available at epic.org. The report on the tech is not what will be submitted under seal. -Declan From decoy at iki.fi Thu Aug 9 07:06:48 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:06:48 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? In-Reply-To: <20010809080833.11532.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: On 9 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: >I have a question for you c'punks. If you wanted to generate some bitmaps >of text which would be difficult or impossible to OCR, but not too >difficult for humans to read, how would you do that? Basically, I want to >create GIFs of text which can't be OCRed in a reliable way. I've thought >about some things: I can put in noise pixels, I can blur the text, I can >rotate, shear, and otherwise distort it. Some ideas: Start with a highly ornate script font. Anti-alias. Try a font with lots of gaps and other topology breaking features. Pluck out a decent perceptual model from one of the better image compressors and try doing maximum modifications beneath a given perceptual error bound. Low contrast, with information encoded in the hue channel. (Dead trees: Use a colorless, fluorescent ink, or a combination of such inks to throw off the scanner. Print your stuff on extremely heat and/or light sensitive paper.) Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From decoy at iki.fi Thu Aug 9 07:14:24 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:14:24 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? In-Reply-To: <3B727057.632F0EED@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Ken Brown wrote: >As an afterthought, the experts in this must be the people who print >banknotes. Real ones, I mean, not your boring US green ones that are all >the same size and colour so foreigners can't tell them apart and you have >to employ millions of Secret Service agents to stop forgers. I bet the >Bank of England go on about it on their website. Try the Euro notes. The firms contracted to print them are rumoured to have experienced serious trouble with the first batches. But that is hardly the same problem. I don't think the same precautions apply, as we aren't trying to protect the information on top of the note but the identity of the physical note itself. Clearly you cannot do that when dealing with GIFs. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From petter_zhang at 163.com Thu Aug 9 02:35:55 2001 From: petter_zhang at 163.com (petter_zhang at 163.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:35:55 +0800 (CST) Subject: MINI-BIKE USD19.8 FOB SHENZHEN Offer to sell the latest & safer new generation products Message-ID: <20010809093555.975E21C4783E2@smtp3.163.com> USD19.8/PC FOB SHENZHEN Offer to sell the latest & safer new generation products ��If this mail bother you, please helpfully cancel it.�� --- Mini-Bike with Hand or Rear Brake & Chain Guard !!! --- 6�� solid rubble wheels --- front & rear suspension --- adjustable handlebar & seat ... It is a wonderful new product for body shape, very popular in USA, Japan, Europe, �� We can supply samples for your reference. Don��t miss this good business opportunity !!! Shenzhen Choices Industry Co., Ltd. ����׿����ʵҵ���޹�˾ ADD:ROOM 407-408,A BUILDING XIANGZHU GARDEN,ZUZHILING,FUTIAN DISTRICT,SHENZHEN,CHINA ���ڸ��������������黨԰407-408# > TEL :86 13823677077 755 3183037 \ 3709573 Ms. Shirly Wang > Fax: 86 755 3183037 E-mail: shirly887 at 163.com Dochance at 8848.net choicescom at 163.com http://gafucom.ebigchina.com ������Ӧ����������һ��������� + ��ȫ��ɲ��װ���������� ������ ��ƿ�ʽ��ӱʱ�У�6��ʵ�����֣���ǰ������������120KGS �����������������ڳ��ѳ�����������ѡ�����ر��ǰ�ȫ��ɲ��װ����������˫�ر����� ����һ��������ŷ�������ͼ��������Ʒ����ʱ�ṩ��Ʒ�� �̻�һ˲�� ���ɴ���� --------------------------------------------------------------- ���ʼ��ɡ�����ʼ�Ⱥ�� 2.0�����ͣ��ʼ���������������޹� --------------------------------------------------------------- ��������ֵ����������� http://www.jinfengnet.com From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 9 17:37:36 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:37:36 -0700 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia In-Reply-To: <20010809195359.A17226@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108100037.f7A0bkY14053@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 04:53 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:17:45PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> A better approach is to take the already-functional machines already >> on >> desktops and harness them for parallel computation. Hardly a new idea, >> as it has been used for distributed key cracks, molecular modelling, >> and >> SETI signal processing. >> >> We on the Cypherpunks list, including Jim Gillogly, Lucky Green, >> myself, >> and others, proposed this in the mid-90s. Cf. articles on DES-busting >> screen savers, circa mid-1995. The "Chinese Lottery" idea of using > > Even by then, it was a relatively old idea. In 1988 or 1989, Richard > Crandall wrote an application called "Godzilla" (later renamed Zilla > after trademark threats) for NeXT computers that did parallel > computation and was configurable. It was remarkably ahead of its > time. I think it even was a screensaver too. NeXT used it at their > corporate HQ in Redwood City (where I worked in 1990) and it was also > available via the usual wustl/etc. FTP sites. Thanks for the info. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I get tired of people reinventing the wheel, but I am happy to be corrected that someone invented a wheel before I/we did. As for NeXT, they pioneered in many areas. I wanted one in 1990, but couldn't justify spending $8-10K for a Cube, so I "settled" for a Mac IIci, which served me well for four years. (I spent a year writing the Cyphernomicon on it, for example, plus all of the early Cypherpunks traffic.) Since then, I've had a succession of Macs, including: Powerbook 100, 170, and G3. A 7100AV, a G4 Tower, and an iBook SE. But now I also have the NeXT OS, even improved over NeXTStep, according to what I hear from NeXT fans. OS X ("OS Ten, not "OS Ex") is truly an enjoyable experience. Unix (BSD) for those who want to use it, the Mach kernel NeXT was earliest to adopt in a major product, and a stunning Aqua interface. I can't do it justice in this short article. I have it on my G4 Tower, which I'm using now, and on my iBook. It' s caused me to abandon a few vendors who have been dragging their feet in favor of those who decided to embrace OS X in a major way. For those who are interested, here's what I'm mostly using right now: -- OS X Mail for e-mail, replacing Eudora Pro that I have used in one form or another since 1992. Eudora runs under OS X, but they seem to have little effort to make it _consistent_ with OS X conventions. Mail is bundled-in with OS X; I understand that is based on the NeXTMail appication. Besides, after 9 years of using the same mailer, I'm enjoying the fresh outlook (pun intended). -- Thoth for newsreading. Done by Brian Clarke, who did VA-Newswatcher and YA-Newswatcher. Lots of features. I send in my "shareware" fee for this, being so happy with this. -- OmniWeb, a great browser from the Omni Group, a Seattle-based bunch of NeXT programmers who are turning out some nice apps. (This is a wonderful example of what happens to bigness: the Omni Group is about 10 or fewer people. Compare their output to the "Netscape Division of AOL/Time Warner," or whatever it is called. When was the last time anyone seriously claimed the Netscape Navigator is better than Microsoft's Explorer?) -- Explorer. Yes, I also use Explorer. Been using it more or less happily for several years. It does some things very well. -- Squeak (Smalltalk). A fully Cocoaized (Objective C, the native lingo of OS X) virtual machine, with the source code running on the VM. -- Apple Works, instead of Microsoft Office. This is the descendant of ClarisWorks, an "all-in-one" package. It's fully OS X-optimized, which means a capable word processor, spreadsheet, outliner, etc. (Yeah, I know about Microsoft Word. Being an old-timer, I can count on winning a lot of "Who used it first?" contests. I bought Microsoft Word 1.0 for the IBM PC in late '83, back when it came bundled with the Microsoft Mouse. I did a paper in early '84 on my IBM PC, bought with my own money ($3000 in 1983 dollars. And I bought Microsoft Word 1.05 as soon as it appeared for the Mac, circa 1986. I've used it for many years since. However, for my 1995 paper on "Crypto Anarchy and Virtual Communities," widely distributed on the Net, I decided to use FrameMaker, which our own Hugh Daniel had earlier helped design. The world has moved away from elaborate printed pages, at least for laymen like us, so FrameMaker is unused by me. I may upgrade to the OS X version, or maybe not.) In daily use of OS X, I am stunned by its power and robustness. Perhaps comparable to Linux (though even Gnome is not as "visually pleasing," which is why Easel was trying to do what it did, but ran out of money). Better than Windows, that's for sure. (I bought Windows 1.0 for my IBM PC in '85, and use Windows 98 in emulation mode on my Macs.) Bottom line: I L-O-V-E OS X! --Tim May From drevil at sidereal.kz Thu Aug 9 11:14:20 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 9 Aug 2001 18:14:20 -0000 Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? In-Reply-To: (message from Sampo Syreeni on Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:06:48 +0300 (EEST)) References: Message-ID: <20010809181420.638.qmail@sidereal.kz> Decoy writes: > Some ideas: Start with a highly ornate script font. Anti-alias. Try a font > with lots of gaps and other topology breaking features. Pluck out a decent > perceptual model from one of the better image compressors and try doing > maximum modifications beneath a given perceptual error bound. Low contrast, > with information encoded in the hue channel. Thank you, excellent sugestions. I put in the anti-aliasing thing and that is clearly something which will piss off an OCR device. Here's an example of my current attempt at something which would be neigh-impossible to OCR reliably: http://www.sidereal.kz/~drevil/anti-ocr.png What do you think? It's got some shear, some rotate, some spread, and some swirl. And anti-aliasing, which was a great sugestion. I'm going to experiment with adding some dotted lines, too. Ken Brown writes: > Write by hand. Change your handwriting style part-way through. As you may be aware, Doctors have notoriously bad handwriting, but alas, it must be machine-generated. > If the colours were chosen carefully, off-the-shelf OCR would also be > confused because the contrast of the edges would be colour, not > intensity. OTOH it would be circumventable by enhancing colour contrast > then switching to monochrome & enhancing edges. Anything you can do in Right, screwing around with color contrast may not be effective at all, because those things are very easy to take out by just editing the color map, and suddenly it's sharp and clear. > 10 minutes with Paint Shop Pro is probably doable by the Men In Black > sooner or later. Ah, but the Men in Black are not the threat in this case. Au contraire! This is part of an anti-money-laundry thing. > As an afterthought, the experts in this must be the people who print > banknotes. Real ones, I mean, not your boring US green ones that are > all the same size and colour so foreigners can't tell them apart and > you have to employ millions of Secret Service agents to stop > forgers. I bet the Bank of England go on about it on their website. I'll check there. They are mostly concerned with a different problem, which is duplication. I want to make stuff that humans can read, and machines can't. It's all going to be PNGs, so machines can duplicate it no problem. From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 9 18:53:03 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:53:03 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108100153.f7A1rFY14370@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 06:32 PM, Faustine wrote: > Jim wrote: >> Faustine: >>> I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to >>> dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security as >>> a donut- chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone imbecile. >>> >>> Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did you ever >>> stop to think about who's really doing the hardcore >>> research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? > I know of an old-school NSA red teamer who's been teaching programming > and > engineering since before either one of us was born. An honest-to-god > mathematical genius. Some of those old wizards could teach us all a > thing or two. Since I have no idea how old the "Jim" you cite is, and since I suspect you are less than 25 years old, your claims are not very impressive. We have had (and may still have) list members who were developing systems for the NSA in 1963, fully 37 years ago. (Cf. "Harvest" in Bamford's 1983 book. A hardy reader will known what I'm talking about.) You twentysomething grad student should be very careful when talking about 'before either one of us was born." While probably true, of little significance. --Tim May From kravietz at aba.krakow.pl Thu Aug 9 10:13:51 2001 From: kravietz at aba.krakow.pl (Pawel Krawczyk) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:13:51 +0200 Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? Message-ID: <20010809191351.X360@aba.krakow.pl> I was thinking about building medium size WANs based on peer to peer radio links and wonder if such technology exists already? The idea is to have a number of boxes with indoor or outdoor antenna. For example in a city you could have such a box in each flat, in a village in each house. The requirement is that they are far from each other not more that say 200 meters, depending on what our hypothetical wireless technology allows. So far it's quite similiar to what we already have with WLANs. The difference is that the boxes can forward packets for each other, thus allowing distant nodes to communicate via the `router' nodes between them. Many more ideas come to mind here like dynamic routing, access control, traffic policing etc. As for the wireless connection I was thinking about low-power radio broadcast, so you don't need to get license and the big telcos can't sue you as breaking monopolies (still in Poland...). The low-power requirement implies relatively short distance, like 100-200 meters. But that's quite enough with average distance between houses being much smaller in areas where many people live. Do you know technologies like this, existing already? What bandwidth you can get with wireless links based on radio modulation? Thanks for all suggestions. -- Paweł Krawczyk *** home: security: *** fidonet: 2:486/23 From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Aug 9 10:15:08 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:15:08 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <3B72C186.C1B59151@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > RSW gives excellent advice. Bear in mind : the larger the batch the > easier it will be to keep it hot... I recommend organic peroxides. Preferably, large quantities thereof, suddenly heated in closed vessels made from specific metals. Excellently suitable for beginner pyrotechnicians. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Aug 9 10:15:08 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:15:08 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <3B72C186.C1B59151@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > RSW gives excellent advice. Bear in mind : the larger the batch the > easier it will be to keep it hot... I recommend organic peroxides. Preferably, large quantities thereof, suddenly heated in closed vessels made from specific metals. Excellently suitable for beginner pyrotechnicians. From declan at well.com Thu Aug 9 16:53:59 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:53:59 -0400 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia In-Reply-To: <200108091917.f79JHt511283@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:17:45PM -0700 References: <200108091917.f79JHt511283@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010809195359.A17226@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 12:17:45PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > A better approach is to take the already-functional machines already on > desktops and harness them for parallel computation. Hardly a new idea, > as it has been used for distributed key cracks, molecular modelling, and > SETI signal processing. > > We on the Cypherpunks list, including Jim Gillogly, Lucky Green, myself, > and others, proposed this in the mid-90s. Cf. articles on DES-busting > screen savers, circa mid-1995. The "Chinese Lottery" idea of using Even by then, it was a relatively old idea. In 1988 or 1989, Richard Crandall wrote an application called "Godzilla" (later renamed Zilla after trademark threats) for NeXT computers that did parallel computation and was configurable. It was remarkably ahead of its time. I think it even was a screensaver too. NeXT used it at their corporate HQ in Redwood City (where I worked in 1990) and it was also available via the usual wustl/etc. FTP sites. -Declan From dunes at tbwt.com Thu Aug 9 20:02:02 2001 From: dunes at tbwt.com (dunes at tbwt.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:02:02 Subject: For First joining Rights to a new company!!! Message-ID: <392.868257.427191@mailerate> Hello, Have the First Right to join the new company - be on top the forced members matrix and secure your spot!! Just opened few days old! 500 to 600 members sign up daily. Request for info, mailto:emit1 at usa.com?subject=info please! HURRY and let this company BUILD your downline!! Have a nice day! ................................................................ .................................... To be removed from future mailing list: mailto:ido2 at usa.com?subject=remove me! Thanks. From Trypropec at cs.com Thu Aug 9 20:07:44 2001 From: Trypropec at cs.com (Trypropec at cs.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:07:44 -0700 Subject: Happy with you Pee Pee???? Message-ID: <200108100305.f7A350504839@rigel.cyberpass.net> Hello, I have just discovered a great new all natural product that is GAURANTEED to work. Aall natural safe and effective Penis enlargement cream. Check it out at WWW.Propec.friendpsges.com If you like the product first order has free shipping charges. I gained over an 1-1/2" in lenght and 3/4" in girth. My wife thinks Iam great. check it out. If you got this in error please disregard this message. From Trypropec at cs.com Thu Aug 9 20:08:05 2001 From: Trypropec at cs.com (Trypropec at cs.com) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:08:05 -0700 Subject: Happy with you Pee Pee???? Message-ID: <200108100305.UAA13605@toad.com> Hello, I have just discovered a great new all natural product that is GAURANTEED to work. Aall natural safe and effective Penis enlargement cream. Check it out at WWW.Propec.friendpsges.com If you like the product first order has free shipping charges. I gained over an 1-1/2" in lenght and 3/4" in girth. My wife thinks Iam great. check it out. If you got this in error please disregard this message. From mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net Thu Aug 9 11:11:14 2001 From: mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net (Anonymous Coredump) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Secret Warrants Message-ID: <6a16f03e3f62435e28197488d43f0ceb@remailer.segfault.net> I don't understand this controversy. Who cares what the law is? Why would you ever let anyone know about the intruder you just blew away inside your house? Just disappear the body in a shallow grave, or cut it up into little pieces and run it thru a chipper in your garage and bag it up, dump into a river for fish food. Why would anyone be stupid enough to call the pigs over something like that? Geez, wake up! From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 9 17:44:15 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: keylogger detection Message-ID: Bear wrote: >However, in both xwindows and microsoft windows, there are higher-level >key handling routines that have 'hooks' which something can be attached >to so that one application can detect keystrokes directed to another. >These constitute independent sequences that would have to be checked, >and that would be a bit harder. You might have a look at PCiHookProtect 2.05 if you don't feel like writing it yourself--their heuristic analysis is pretty interesting. It takes awhile to run but I've never seen another program quite like it; if you know of anything better, drop me a line. ~Faustine. http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/8839/hookprot.html HookProtect's main features are: - detection of loggers and monitoring programs loaded in memory; - discovery of loggers and monitoring programs located on hard drive but not loaded in memory by using special technology of heuristic analysis; - listing of all loaded modules and opened files; - monitoring of files activity (files and directories creations, deletions, renames, changes in attributes, size and time - all by user's choice) on selected directory; - detailed information in log file; - Windows 95/98 and Windows NT Workstation 4.0 support; Description of hooks in Windows 9x/NT From bill.stewart at pobox.com Thu Aug 9 21:04:47 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:04:47 -0700 Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? In-Reply-To: References: <20010809080833.11532.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010809093704.0332a940@idiom.com> >On 9 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil is alleged to have written: > >I have a question for you c'punks. If you wanted to generate some bitmaps > >of text which would be difficult or impossible to OCR, but not too > >difficult for humans to read, how would you do that? Basically, I want to > >create GIFs of text which can't be OCRed in a reliable way. I've thought > >about some things: I can put in noise pixels, I can blur the text, I can > >rotate, shear, and otherwise distort it. It depends a lot on your threat model. If the people who want a copy are determined enough, they'll just retype it :-) If you're trying to make signs that video-cameras can't read, that's a different problem than trying to publish comic books that teenagers with too much time on their hands can't scan, or trying to publish source code on paper so that your customers can inspect the crypto without being able to scan/modify/compile it. (The latter may satisfy the Gnu Public License (:-), but isn't particularly useful for crypto, because people can't use it to produce a binary they can trust...) If your problem is to make the OCR job require enough manual tweaking that the reader might as well just retype it, here's what I'd do: split up each letter into multiple pieces, using different colors for the different parts of the letter, and vary the color maps across the page. Also do this for the background space. And dither the pieces! OCRs usually work by identifying features of the letter (vertical on the left, horizontal in the middle, vertical in the lower right, etc.), after deciding what parts are in the letter and what aren't. So instead of having to find the black stuff on the white background, or the yellow stuff on the blue background, it's having to find the green and cyan dither stuff and the aqua and turquoise dither stuff on the blue and indigo dither background and the indigo and purple background, and further down the page you've shuffled other colors in and out of the mix. So even if it's smart enough to edge-detect blobs of dithered stuff on top of other dithered stuff, the blobs don't add up to recognizable letters - they add up to fragments that only become a letter if you put them all together successfully. From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 9 18:32:33 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:32:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3B71DB0A.15148.B9E4F9@localhost> References: <3B71DB0A.15148.B9E4F9@localhost> Message-ID: Jim wrote: > Faustine: >> I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to >> dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security as >> a donut- chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone imbecile. >> >> Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did you ever >> stop to think about who's really doing the hardcore >> research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? > > To judge by their most recent crypto ballsup, some donut chomping > incompetents. That's just as inaccurate as condeming everyone who ever worked for Microsoft as clueless because of their corporate propensity for security lapses. You wouldn't go that far, would you? Didn't think so... LOL I know of an old-school NSA red teamer who's been teaching programming and engineering since before either one of us was born. An honest-to-god mathematical genius. Some of those old wizards could teach us all a thing or two. But whether the donut-chomping incompetents have the upper hand is anyone's guess. I wouldn't bet on it in the long run. >> Not everyone who wrote assessments for CIA got them past the >> politicized review of deputy director Gates. As you may know, >> the whole culture in the 80s was characterized by a deep rift >> between two warring factions who literally referred to each >> other as "knuckledraggers" and "commie symps." If the symps had the >> upper hand instead of the knuckledraggers under Casey, >> there's not a doubt in my mind you would have seen an entirely >> different kind of intelligence product. > The commie symps favored the "alliance for progress", which shows they > were even further out of contact with reality than the > knuckledraggers. Maybe, but I have more of an issue with the "cook the books to support my policy" angle than anything else. There's a great article by James Worthen, "The Gates Hearings: Politicization and Soviet Analysis at CIA" from Studies in Intelligence (Vol. 38, No.1, Spring 1994). I wish I had a pdf (or whatever the "correct" format is in light of the Adobe boycott), lots of relevant quotes to pull. ~Faustine. From sinister_000 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 9 04:46:18 2001 From: sinister_000 at hotmail.com (~~sinister~~) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:46:18 +1000 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS Message-ID: yo man.... i need some plans to make nitro gliserene i think thats how its spelt.... come on man get me the shit... ~~sinister~~ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 983 bytes Desc: not available URL: From secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net Thu Aug 9 14:53:28 2001 From: secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net (Secret Squirrel) Date: 9 Aug 2001 21:53:28 -0000 Subject: Indict Saddam Message-ID: <20010809215328.7900.qmail@nym.alias.net> Steve Schear quoting Michael Rubin writes: > Tuesday's U.S.-British air strikes against Iraq once again raise the > question of why much of the international community continues to > treat Saddam Hussein with kid gloves.... > > While working as a visiting professor at the University of Sulaymani > in Western-defended northern Iraq this past year, I had occasion to > witness the growing involvement of Western executives in > Iraq. Mohammed Douri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador, recently told a > reporter, "Politics is about interests. Politics is not about > morals. If the French and others will take a positive position in > the Security Council, certainly they will get a benefit." It's hard to take seriously any American calling for a trial of Saddam Hussein who does not first call for a trial of Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is guilty of a wide variety of serious crimes. Many are suitable for an international tribunal, others are clear cut violations of U.S. law. Kissinger is available, prosecutable, and guilty. From Digitas at marketfirst.avasta.net Thu Aug 9 14:57:30 2001 From: Digitas at marketfirst.avasta.net (Digitas at marketfirst.avasta.net) Date: 9 Aug 2001 21:57:30 GMT Subject: Take a new direction with Digitas Message-ID: <20010809214512.770E04000BD@scga0183.mrk1st.com> Do you love pushing the boundaries? Do you enjoy doing things nobody's ever tried before? Do you really like working with extraordinary talented people? Are you ready to take your career in a new direction? Your resume on the Web caught our attention and we invite you to consider a career at Digitas. Regardless if you're looking to take a new direction now or just mapping out a path for your future, take two minutes to to describe your dream job by clicking here: http://hire.emarkethost.net/mk/get/REDIG2?_ED=0ZgyX5r9PrIIg5ZPbrIheE and select your job requirements. Your criteria will be immediately matched against all posted positions. When there's a match, now or in the future, you'll instantly be notified by confidential email. This is your opportunity to take the right direction. DIGITAS. Digitas enables Global 200 and other blue-chip companies to connect the right message to the right customer through the right channel at the right time. http://careers.digitas.com If you do not wish to receive future news, tips and promotions from us, please reply (including all original text) with Unsubscribe in the subject line. -----------Please do not change the next line----------- ABAAGDKOABJANKDPABEADAHJIAEANKKO- Powered by MarketFirst(TM) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3762 bytes Desc: not available URL: From info at ins-savings.com Fri Aug 10 00:56:48 2001 From: info at ins-savings.com (info at ins-savings.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:56:48 -0-1200 Subject: Save On Your Life Insurance -FREE Quote Message-ID: <40iodj451x.yvty6g0bus1d0n8r@210.177.26.140> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5809 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Thu Aug 9 23:19:10 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:19:10 -0400 Subject: Making SERIOUS MONEY has never been so EASY!!$$ Message-ID: <200108100619.CAA08749@www.infogeneratorpro.com> Fri Aug 10, 2001 Dear Friend, NEW CD ROM is helping to Create HUGE FORTUNES!! Free Info: * What if you could make a full time income handing/sending out a $1.25 CD ROM? * What if the company paid you EVERY DAY? * What if it was a New York Stock Exchange Company? * What if there was no "real" competition, and everybody needs our service? * What if you got paid when somebody goes to your website and views the hottest video presentation ever and signs up? IF you are the least bit curious about why this CD ROM is making us Fortunes All you need to do is simply: send an email to: sendmecdrom-12281 at infogeneratorpro.com and put "CD ROM" in the subject heading. We will email you all you need to know to get signed up and making money TODAY!!! ( This is NOT SPAM-You have recently responded to a contest/Survey/advertisement requesting information about a Home Business. To be removed please click on the remove link at the bottom) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from THIS list: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe _____________ OR _________________________ Remove yourself from ALL LISTS at InfoGeneratorPRO: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe_all Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From nobody at generalprotectionfault.net Fri Aug 10 00:21:11 2001 From: nobody at generalprotectionfault.net (Anonimo Arancio) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:21:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: It's DMCA, stupid (was Re: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft) Message-ID: <69f8e65cebd5b093faaeff489cc9d197@generalprotectionfault.net > The US government is re-visiting the beaten path of behaviour control, by incriminating genital actions and instilling fear in its subjects - whenever you get an erection or get wet, you may be doing something illegal, so to cure the guilt after a nice orgasm pay taxes, turn in your neighbour and participate in polls. This works very well. Most sheeple will automagically condemn "child porn" (that is recording visible-light illuminated genitals of humans of various ages below government-sanctioned limit and displaying them.) US Government owns the copyright to penises and vaginas of all its subjects and will diligently pursue all infringements. No such thing as fair use here. The copyright is enforced by exploiting sex-guilt brainwashing deeply embedded into american sheeple and combining in with "for the children" scam that has developed nicely in recent decades. The only way to combat this is to refuse the premise. The moment you agree that "child porn is bad" you have co-opted into the scam. Until you are able to say and act on the premise that "child genital display and sex" is OK you will be fucked, and your progeny as well. Very few can do this, and the government knows it. And you will continue to be fucked. You deserve it. For a long time I thought that "stupid americans" is just another generalisation. But now I begin to suspect that there is something genetic about it. Something in the food or in the air. From melissa_osborne at loveable.com Thu Aug 9 16:38:57 2001 From: melissa_osborne at loveable.com (Melissa Osborne) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:38:57 +0300 Subject: Rewards from Melissa Message-ID: <200108092338.QAA19964@toad.com> Hello. I'm Melissa and i find you in my old boyfriend's ICQ. He's a hacker. Nice boy. He hacked this restricted site. http://pdrone.wet-pussy.cx/confirm.php3 I'm so wet Mmmm i like it... real hardcore. Hurry please, because admin's can close it. :) With Regards, Melissa ICQ#126173000 melissa_osborne at loveable.com From info at furniture4free.net Fri Aug 10 02:54:40 2001 From: info at furniture4free.net (BeaverHome) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:54:40 Subject: List Update - 08/09/01 Message-ID: <410.21338.791976@furniture4free.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7058 bytes Desc: not available URL: From info at furniture4free.net Fri Aug 10 02:54:40 2001 From: info at furniture4free.net (BeaverHome) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:54:40 Subject: List Update - 08/09/01 Message-ID: <869.285314.187319@furniture4free.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7048 bytes Desc: not available URL: From info at furniture4free.net Fri Aug 10 02:54:41 2001 From: info at furniture4free.net (BeaverHome) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:54:41 Subject: List Update - 08/09/01 Message-ID: <487.88438.734442@furniture4free.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7049 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lookhere787 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 03:53:52 2001 From: lookhere787 at yahoo.com (lookhere787 at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 03:53:52 Subject: MAILER-DAEMON Message-ID: <419.794544.678239@server1.bullet.net> Coast Distributing! SOME INFORMATION ABOUT OUR COMPANY: Coast Distributing only distributes legal credit repair information and financial business programs to thousands of individuals all over the United States. In doing so, we have developed a work-at-home program for individuals interested in the opportunity of earning an extra $500.00 to $1,500.00 per week working directly from the comforts of their own home, dorm or apartment. Our work-at-home program is an honest opportunity for you to earn a serious extra income without having to sacrifice a lot of your free time or leave the comforts of your own home, dorm or apartment. All of the work that you will be doing is very simple and can be done from your desk or right at your kitchen table. As a home worker, you can work full or part time whenever you have the free time, mornings, afternoons or evenings. In addition, there is absolutely no experience necessary for you to participate in our program. Our work-at-home program is perfect for individuals interested in earning a serious extra income to help pay off some of their bills! That's right, if you have car payments, rent, mortgage payments, credit card bills, loan payments, etc...this is an excellent opportunity for you to supplement your existing income and start putting some extra money in your pocket! If you are interested, the following information will help to further explain the very profitable work-at-home program that we have to offer you. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Our program simply involves the folding and processing of pamphlets. YOU WILL RECEIVE A FULL $1.00 FOR EACH AND EVERY PAMPHLET THAT YOU PROCESS! What do we mean by process? It's simple... FIRST: You will neatly fold the provided pre-printed single-sided (8 1/2 by 11 inch) pamphlets into thirds [The pamphlet that you will be processing will be provided to you and will be printed on regular 20 lb. (8-1/2 by 11) inch paper]. SECOND: You will neatly insert the folded pamphlets into the provided pre-addressed, postage paid envelopes [These envelopes will be mailed directly to your home or apartment with customers' names & addresses already printed on the envelopes along with postage already affixed to the envelopes]. THIRD: Lick and seal these envelopes and then drop them back into the regular US Mail, directly out to the customers. It's that simple! You NEVER have to pay any postage costs to mail out these pamphlets and the pre-addressed, postage paid envelopes will always be mailed directly to your home or apartment. You simply fold the pamphlets, insert them in the provided envelopes and drop the envelopes back into the mail! Remember, all of the processing work can easily be done at your desk or right at your kitchen table! IMPORTANT: We do provide you with the actual pamphlet that you will be processing which is a sales pamphlet for our Credit Repair Manual. Our Credit Repair Manual is a best-selling financial product that many people are ordering and using to legally clear up their negative credit. And since the demand for our Credit Repair Manual is so OVERWHELMING, you will have the opportunity to process as many pamphlets as your schedule can handle! You can process 100...500...1,000 or even 1,500 pamphlets per week, week after week, month after month, year after year... for as long as you wish to participate! HOW MUCH MONEY CAN YOU EARN? YOU WILL ALWAYS RECEIVE A FULL $1.00 FOR EACH & EVERY PAMPHLET THAT YOU PROCESS! If you process 500 pamphlets you will receive a full $500.00..If you process 1,000 pamphlets you will receive a full $1,000.00...if you process 1,500 pamphlets you will receive a full $1,500.00..Etc! You will always receive A FULL $1.00 per pamphlet and never anything less! What's even better about our program is that you NEVER have to worry about the sale of our Credit Repair Manual in order to receive your $1.00 per pamphlet because our program DOES NOT WORK ON COMMISSION! You will ALWAYS receive A FULL $1.00 for each and every pamphlet that you process REGARDLESS if any sales are made from your mailings! Even if you process 1,500 pamphlets and no sales are made from your mailings, you will still earn A FULL $1,500.00! It's simple, process 1,500 pamphlets, receive A FULL $1,500.00 for your time and effort! Processing payments and additional processing materials will continue to arrive at your home, dorm or apartment for as long as you wish to continue participating in the program! That's right, you can always have money coming in week after week because processing payments and additional processing materials will continue to arrive at your home, dorm or apartment for as long as you wish to participate! Honestly, there is NO GUESSWORK. Our program has been around for several years and is very successful! FACT: Even working slowly, you could still earn a MUCH BETTER weekly income than most regular 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM jobs! THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAM: Anyone, young or old, male or female, any where in the United Stated or Canada can easily earn great money participating in our Pamphlet Processing Program! The reason why our program does not require any experience is simple...it does not take any previous experience to fold a pamphlet, insert it into an envelope, seal the envelope and drop into the mail. Practically every person in the world does the same thing every day mailing out their bills! Plus, our program is specially beneficial for people who need to earn a serious extra income but might not have the spare time for a second job. As stated, just a few hours per day could easily earn you well over $500.00 per week... NO JOKE! Just imagine how nice it would be if you could earn an extra $500.00 to $1,500.00 per week working from your home...no more annoying boss...no more hectic rush hour commuting...no more stressful 9 to 5 job...and no more headaches! FACT: Practically every type of person can benefit financially from our Pamphlet Processing Program. IMPORTANT ; The information contained in our Credit Repair Manual is 100% Legal & Legitimate! In fact, there are hundreds of lawyers and attorneys all over the country using this valuable information and charging people big money to remove negative and incorrect items from their credit files! However, our Credit Repair Manual explains how people can do the VERY SAME THING that these costly attorneys are doing except our manual shows people how to repair their credit FAST, EASY and for FREE without having to hire an attorney! Now is the time, there are TENS-OF-MILLIONS of Americans with bad credit who would probably love to receive our Credit Repair Manual! Therefore, if you are serious about devoting a few hours per week towards the opportunity of earning an honest extra income, our $1.00 Pamphlet Processing Program is PERFECT FOR YOU! IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE: We will send you a Starters Kit containing the pamphlets and instructions necessary for you to begin participating IMMEDIATELY in our Pamphlet Processing Program! Plus, your Starters Kit also contains your very own copy of Credit Repair Manual! That's right you can use our best-selling manual to legally clear up and repair any negative credit that you may have! This manual is yours just for becoming a member of our Pamphlet Processing Program! Once your Starters Kit arrives, follow the simple instructions and process your first batch of pamphlets. After you process your first batch of pamphlets you can then take the time to determine the amount of pamphlets that you feel you can process each week thereafter. Remember, you can participate for as long as you choose and at any time you can increase or decrease the number of pamphlets that you are processing. Therefore, to get started immediately, all that our company requires is a one-time non-refundable order processing fee of only $50.00. Please understand, we cannot afford to send out a package of valuable materials to everyone interested in our program. And also keep in mind that once you process 100 pamphlets you will have already earned your $50.00 back and are left with an extra $50.00 profit!!! We must charge a small processing fee to ensure that only serious individuals intend to participate in our program. Keep in mind, you NEVER have to pay us any other fees and you can participate for as long as you wish! This fee simply assures our company that you are indeed serious about our program and the opportunity to make good money working from your home. Sorry, we CANNOT process your order form without the one-time processing fee since there are far too many serious individuals willing to pay this small one-time fee in order to participate in our high profit work-at-home program. Therefore, all you have to do is just complete, print, sign, and mail the Order Form "AFC-50: 17.F, . Please, be sure to complete the Order Form IN FULL with your correct shipping address in order to prevent any processing delays in the shipment of your package. That's right, if you are really looking for a 100% LEGAL & LEGITIMATE home based income opportunity we can honestly say that you have finally found the right company with an honest and proven money making program! Therefore, we sincerely hope that you do decide to try our profitable Pamphlet Processing Program and we do hope that you join the many individuals all over the United States already enjoying the wonderful financial rewards that are associated with working from home! PRINT BELOW DOTTED LINE! ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- - PROCESSING DEPARTMENT - Coast Distributing! 6047 Tampa Blvd. # 440 Tarzana Ca 91356 - HOMEWORKER ORDER FORM - * FORM AFC-50: 17.F (USE 1999-2000) * [PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH THE CORRECT MAILING ADDRESS TO SHIP YOUR STARTERS KIT] NAME:_____________________________________________________________ _____ ADDRESS:___________________________________________APT.#:_________ _____ CITY:_______________________________STATE:_________ZIPCODE________ _____ DAY PHONE:(____)________-_______ EVENING PHONE#:(____)______-________ BIRTHDATE:__/__/__ EMAIL ADDRESS___________________________ SIGNATURE______________________________________________________ TODAYS DATE___/___/___ YES,I would like the opportunity to earn extra money working right from the comfort of my home, dorm, or apartment participating in the Pamphlet Processing Program.. I understand that I will receive a FULL $1.00 for EACH & EVERY pamphlet that I process! I understand that if I process 500 pamphlets I will receive A FULL $500.00........If I process 1,000 pamphlets I will receive A FULL $1,000.00.......If I process 1,500 pamphlets I will receive A FULL $1,500.00........Etc.! I also understand that the program DOES NOT work on commission that means that I will ALWAYS receive A FULL $1.00 per pamphlet REGARDLESS if any sales are made from my mailings! I understand that my starter's kit will contain the pamphlets, and instructions necessary to get me started IMMEDIATELY as a member of the Pamphlet Processing Program! I also understand that my Starters Kit will contain my very own copy of the CREDIT REPAIR MANUAL! I understand that I can use the CREDIT REPAIR MANUAL to legally clear up and repair any negative credit that I might have! I understand that this material is provided to me just for becoming a member of the Pamphlet Processing Program! I also understand that I will be free to set my own hours and participate in the program either part-time or full-time. I do understand that a small (Non-Refundable) fee of $50.00 is a ONE TIME FEE ONLY! I will not have to pay Coast Distributing any other fees, EVER! IMPORTANT: Since we DO NOT want to create any unnecessary competition between our existing members we do reserve the right to stop accepting new members if our quota is met. Therefore, if you are serious about this income opportunity we do suggest that you mail in you completed form IMMEDIATELY that will GUARANTEE the delivery of your Starters Kit! DESIRED WEEKLY INCOME (CIRCLE ONE)100 300 500 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 IMPORTANT: $50.00 ENCLOSED CHECKS AND MONEY ORDERS MUST BE PAYABLE TO: Coast Distributing IMPORTANT: Please allow 4 weeks processing and delivery time! WHERE DID YOU SEE OUR COMPANY ADVERTISEMENT? HOTMAIL____YAHOO____RECYCLER____EMAIL____OTHER____ To be removed, send email to "info95 at blazemail.com" Type the word "REMOVE" in the Subject line. Your request to be removed will be processed within 48 hours. From info18 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 04:32:04 2001 From: info18 at yahoo.com (info18 at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 04:32:04 Subject: why not? Message-ID: <677.715985.467657@server1.bullet.net> Coast Distributing! SOME INFORMATION ABOUT OUR COMPANY: Coast Distributing only distributes legal credit repair information and financial business programs to thousands of individuals all over the United States. In doing so, we have developed a work-at-home program for individuals interested in the opportunity of earning an extra $500.00 to $1,500.00 per week working directly from the comforts of their own home, dorm or apartment. Our work-at-home program is an honest opportunity for you to earn a serious extra income without having to sacrifice a lot of your free time or leave the comforts of your own home, dorm or apartment. All of the work that you will be doing is very simple and can be done from your desk or right at your kitchen table. As a home worker, you can work full or part time whenever you have the free time, mornings, afternoons or evenings. In addition, there is absolutely no experience necessary for you to participate in our program. Our work-at-home program is perfect for individuals interested in earning a serious extra income to help pay off some of their bills! That's right, if you have car payments, rent, mortgage payments, credit card bills, loan payments, etc...this is an excellent opportunity for you to supplement your existing income and start putting some extra money in your pocket! If you are interested, the following information will help to further explain the very profitable work-at-home program that we have to offer you. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Our program simply involves the folding and processing of pamphlets. YOU WILL RECEIVE A FULL $1.00 FOR EACH AND EVERY PAMPHLET THAT YOU PROCESS! What do we mean by process? It's simple... FIRST: You will neatly fold the provided pre-printed single-sided (8 1/2 by 11 inch) pamphlets into thirds [The pamphlet that you will be processing will be provided to you and will be printed on regular 20 lb. (8-1/2 by 11) inch paper]. SECOND: You will neatly insert the folded pamphlets into the provided pre-addressed, postage paid envelopes [These envelopes will be mailed directly to your home or apartment with customers' names & addresses already printed on the envelopes along with postage already affixed to the envelopes]. THIRD: Lick and seal these envelopes and then drop them back into the regular US Mail, directly out to the customers. It's that simple! You NEVER have to pay any postage costs to mail out these pamphlets and the pre-addressed, postage paid envelopes will always be mailed directly to your home or apartment. You simply fold the pamphlets, insert them in the provided envelopes and drop the envelopes back into the mail! Remember, all of the processing work can easily be done at your desk or right at your kitchen table! IMPORTANT: We do provide you with the actual pamphlet that you will be processing which is a sales pamphlet for our Credit Repair Manual. Our Credit Repair Manual is a best-selling financial product that many people are ordering and using to legally clear up their negative credit. And since the demand for our Credit Repair Manual is so OVERWHELMING, you will have the opportunity to process as many pamphlets as your schedule can handle! You can process 100...500...1,000 or even 1,500 pamphlets per week, week after week, month after month, year after year... for as long as you wish to participate! HOW MUCH MONEY CAN YOU EARN? YOU WILL ALWAYS RECEIVE A FULL $1.00 FOR EACH & EVERY PAMPHLET THAT YOU PROCESS! If you process 500 pamphlets you will receive a full $500.00..If you process 1,000 pamphlets you will receive a full $1,000.00...if you process 1,500 pamphlets you will receive a full $1,500.00..Etc! You will always receive A FULL $1.00 per pamphlet and never anything less! What's even better about our program is that you NEVER have to worry about the sale of our Credit Repair Manual in order to receive your $1.00 per pamphlet because our program DOES NOT WORK ON COMMISSION! You will ALWAYS receive A FULL $1.00 for each and every pamphlet that you process REGARDLESS if any sales are made from your mailings! Even if you process 1,500 pamphlets and no sales are made from your mailings, you will still earn A FULL $1,500.00! It's simple, process 1,500 pamphlets, receive A FULL $1,500.00 for your time and effort! Processing payments and additional processing materials will continue to arrive at your home, dorm or apartment for as long as you wish to continue participating in the program! That's right, you can always have money coming in week after week because processing payments and additional processing materials will continue to arrive at your home, dorm or apartment for as long as you wish to participate! Honestly, there is NO GUESSWORK. Our program has been around for several years and is very successful! FACT: Even working slowly, you could still earn a MUCH BETTER weekly income than most regular 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM jobs! THERE IS NO EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR PROGRAM: Anyone, young or old, male or female, any where in the United Stated or Canada can easily earn great money participating in our Pamphlet Processing Program! The reason why our program does not require any experience is simple...it does not take any previous experience to fold a pamphlet, insert it into an envelope, seal the envelope and drop into the mail. Practically every person in the world does the same thing every day mailing out their bills! Plus, our program is specially beneficial for people who need to earn a serious extra income but might not have the spare time for a second job. As stated, just a few hours per day could easily earn you well over $500.00 per week... NO JOKE! Just imagine how nice it would be if you could earn an extra $500.00 to $1,500.00 per week working from your home...no more annoying boss...no more hectic rush hour commuting...no more stressful 9 to 5 job...and no more headaches! FACT: Practically every type of person can benefit financially from our Pamphlet Processing Program. IMPORTANT ; The information contained in our Credit Repair Manual is 100% Legal & Legitimate! In fact, there are hundreds of lawyers and attorneys all over the country using this valuable information and charging people big money to remove negative and incorrect items from their credit files! However, our Credit Repair Manual explains how people can do the VERY SAME THING that these costly attorneys are doing except our manual shows people how to repair their credit FAST, EASY and for FREE without having to hire an attorney! Now is the time, there are TENS-OF-MILLIONS of Americans with bad credit who would probably love to receive our Credit Repair Manual! Therefore, if you are serious about devoting a few hours per week towards the opportunity of earning an honest extra income, our $1.00 Pamphlet Processing Program is PERFECT FOR YOU! IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE: We will send you a Starters Kit containing the pamphlets and instructions necessary for you to begin participating IMMEDIATELY in our Pamphlet Processing Program! Plus, your Starters Kit also contains your very own copy of Credit Repair Manual! That's right you can use our best-selling manual to legally clear up and repair any negative credit that you may have! This manual is yours just for becoming a member of our Pamphlet Processing Program! Once your Starters Kit arrives, follow the simple instructions and process your first batch of pamphlets. After you process your first batch of pamphlets you can then take the time to determine the amount of pamphlets that you feel you can process each week thereafter. Remember, you can participate for as long as you choose and at any time you can increase or decrease the number of pamphlets that you are processing. Therefore, to get started immediately, all that our company requires is a one-time non-refundable order processing fee of only $50.00. Please understand, we cannot afford to send out a package of valuable materials to everyone interested in our program. And also keep in mind that once you process 100 pamphlets you will have already earned your $50.00 back and are left with an extra $50.00 profit!!! We must charge a small processing fee to ensure that only serious individuals intend to participate in our program. Keep in mind, you NEVER have to pay us any other fees and you can participate for as long as you wish! This fee simply assures our company that you are indeed serious about our program and the opportunity to make good money working from your home. Sorry, we CANNOT process your order form without the one-time processing fee since there are far too many serious individuals willing to pay this small one-time fee in order to participate in our high profit work-at-home program. Therefore, all you have to do is just complete, print, sign, and mail the Order Form "AFC-50: 17.F, . Please, be sure to complete the Order Form IN FULL with your correct shipping address in order to prevent any processing delays in the shipment of your package. That's right, if you are really looking for a 100% LEGAL & LEGITIMATE home based income opportunity we can honestly say that you have finally found the right company with an honest and proven money making program! Therefore, we sincerely hope that you do decide to try our profitable Pamphlet Processing Program and we do hope that you join the many individuals all over the United States already enjoying the wonderful financial rewards that are associated with working from home! PRINT BELOW DOTTED LINE! ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- - PROCESSING DEPARTMENT - Coast Distributing! 6047 Tampa Blvd. # 440 Tarzana Ca 91356 - HOMEWORKER ORDER FORM - * FORM AFC-50: 17.F (USE 1999-2000) * [PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH THE CORRECT MAILING ADDRESS TO SHIP YOUR STARTERS KIT] NAME:_____________________________________________________________ _____ ADDRESS:___________________________________________APT.#:_________ _____ CITY:_______________________________STATE:_________ZIPCODE________ _____ DAY PHONE:(____)________-_______ EVENING PHONE#:(____)______-________ BIRTHDATE:__/__/__ EMAIL ADDRESS___________________________ SIGNATURE______________________________________________________ TODAYS DATE___/___/___ YES,I would like the opportunity to earn extra money working right from the comfort of my home, dorm, or apartment participating in the Pamphlet Processing Program.. I understand that I will receive a FULL $1.00 for EACH & EVERY pamphlet that I process! I understand that if I process 500 pamphlets I will receive A FULL $500.00........If I process 1,000 pamphlets I will receive A FULL $1,000.00.......If I process 1,500 pamphlets I will receive A FULL $1,500.00........Etc.! I also understand that the program DOES NOT work on commission that means that I will ALWAYS receive A FULL $1.00 per pamphlet REGARDLESS if any sales are made from my mailings! I understand that my starter's kit will contain the pamphlets, and instructions necessary to get me started IMMEDIATELY as a member of the Pamphlet Processing Program! I also understand that my Starters Kit will contain my very own copy of the CREDIT REPAIR MANUAL! I understand that I can use the CREDIT REPAIR MANUAL to legally clear up and repair any negative credit that I might have! I understand that this material is provided to me just for becoming a member of the Pamphlet Processing Program! I also understand that I will be free to set my own hours and participate in the program either part-time or full-time. I do understand that a small (Non-Refundable) fee of $50.00 is a ONE TIME FEE ONLY! I will not have to pay Coast Distributing any other fees, EVER! IMPORTANT: Since we DO NOT want to create any unnecessary competition between our existing members we do reserve the right to stop accepting new members if our quota is met. Therefore, if you are serious about this income opportunity we do suggest that you mail in you completed form IMMEDIATELY that will GUARANTEE the delivery of your Starters Kit! DESIRED WEEKLY INCOME (CIRCLE ONE)100 300 500 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 IMPORTANT: $50.00 ENCLOSED CHECKS AND MONEY ORDERS MUST BE PAYABLE TO: Coast Distributing IMPORTANT: Please allow 4 weeks processing and delivery time! WHERE DID YOU SEE OUR COMPANY ADVERTISEMENT? HOTMAIL____YAHOO____RECYCLER____EMAIL____OTHER____ To be removed, send email to "info95 at blazemail.com" Type the word "REMOVE" in the Subject line. Your request to be removed will be processed within 48 hours. From magnasocietal at yahoo.com Fri Aug 10 04:39:12 2001 From: magnasocietal at yahoo.com (CaribbeanCash) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 04:39:12 Subject: Carribbean Web-Centric Society - No Taxes - No Debt - Very Cool Message-ID: <200108100943.f7A9hC515794@rigel.cyberpass.net> "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- John Galt, Atlas Shrugged We are a group of experienced business people that are developing a debt free, tax free community on the foundation of absolute freedom and unlimited enterprise with the spirit of recognizing all God given rights. Magna Societal has over 1000 webfluent members who have committed to building "a new society for a free world". We believe that Global Free Trade CyberZones are the future! We know that the India, Asia and Latin American e-commerce markets are exploding! The Benefits of Magna: No Debt, No Taxes, No Trade Restrictions, No Restrictions of God Given Human Rights... No Limits! Become a founder of an internet and island based society and secure your membership today! Magna Societal will pay you $500 per new membership that you sponsor. Virtual and physical residences and the online community coming soon! An economy built for the future...Global Hosting, Internet Banking, Gaming, E-Commerce, Auctions, Interactive TV, ASP Technology This is the coolest thing on the internet!!!! Call 1-866-811-5324 or 011-507-214-8705 for Website Information Magna Societal is a registered foreign SA with a Board of Directors, financial controls and audited financials which are made available to Charter Members on an annual basis. Magna Societal is not a network marketing company. Please read all disclaimers, as they are made available. We comply with proposed federal legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail by providing you with a method for your e-mail address to be permanently removed from our database and any future mailings from our company. To remove your address, please send a reply e-mail message with the word REMOVE in the subject line. From FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com Fri Aug 10 01:48:57 2001 From: FLN-Community at FreeLinksNetwork.com (Your Membership Newsletter) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 04:48:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Your Membership Community & Commentary, 08-10-01 Message-ID: <20010810084857.8D6CE257D8@rovdb001.roving.com> Your Membership Community & Commentary (August 10, 2001) It's All About Making Money Information to provide you with the absolute best low and no cost ways of providing traffic to your site, helping you to capitalize on the power and potential the web brings to every Net-Preneur. --- This Issue Contains Sites Who Will Trade Links With You! --- ------------- IN THIS ISSUE ------------- Forget About The Cow, Brand The Customer! Member Showcase Commentary Quick Tips Win A FREE Ad In Community & Commentary ||| =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>> Today's Special Announcement: ||| =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>> We can help you become an Internet Service provider within 7 days or we will give you $100.00!! http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com We have already signed 380 ISPs on a 4 year contract, see if any are in YOUR town at: http://www.Find-Local-ISP.com ||| =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=>> You are a member in at least one of these programs - You should be in them all! http://www.BannersGoMLM.com http://www.ProfitBanners.com http://www.CashPromotions.com http://www.MySiteInc.com http://www.TimsHomeTownStories.com http://www.FreeLinksNetwork.com http://www.MyShoppingPlace.com http://www.BannerCo-op.com http://www.PutPEEL.com http://www.PutPEEL.net http://www.SELLinternetACCESS.com http://www.Be-Your-Own-ISP.com http://www.SeventhPower.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Forget About The Cow, Brand The Customer! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When you think of branding, the first thing that must come to mind is a farmer taking a hot iron and burning a distinctive mark onto the side of a cow. Farmers do this so that their cows will not be confused with another farmer's cows. But branding has evolved over the years and has now become a common term used in marketing. Branding is essentially burning your company or web site name or slogan into the minds of potential customers. Many offline companies have been quite successful in doing this. Kleenex is a brand name for tissue as is Band-Aid for adhesive bandages. These companies have incorporated into the customer's mind to perceive these items by their brand name. Branding is important on the Internet, especially with all the cut-throat competition. In the real world, it may be just a matter of convenience why some people shop at a closer discount store than going that extra mile to the next discount store. But on the Internet, any web site is just a click away. You need to differentiate yourself from the rest. Branding can create this difference. One of the most important decisions when it comes to branding is deciding the domain name that you want to use. You want to pick a name that is short and snappy that will "stick" into the minds of visitors and potential customers. I remember about a year ago, a few Internet marketers were making a huge hoopla about the domain names that allowed you to have 67 characters. This fad has died down because people are not going to remember long names such as: www.marketing-reports-that-will-make-you-money-fast.com People find it easy to retain short URL's such as yahoo.com, snap.com or eBay.com. You should pick a name that is short and yet at the same time will give a potential visitor an idea as to what you are all about. For example, if you pick a name such as www.autolube.com, people will automatically associate your name with automobiles and oil. Branding can be also used in slogans. I bet you can pick out these companies real quick: 1. "Quality is Job 1." 2. "Finger-lickin' good." 3. "The milk chocolate melts in your mouth - not in your hand." 4. "Have it your way." 5. "It keeps going, and going, and going..." If you guessed Ford, KFC, M & M's, Burger King, and Energizer, then you probably understand the importance of branding. If you decide to use a slogan for your web site, researchers have suggested that rhymes are easy to remember. For example: "We are number one, because we like to have fun..." Okay, that was kind of cheesy. But you get the point. ;) Another method of branding is with your online classified ads. If you use consistent headlines and words in your ads, then customers will be able to identify the ad to your web site or company very quickly when they see it again. Statistics indicate that customers need to see an online advertisement at least seven times before they will buy. If you are constantly changing your ads for no valid reason, you may be losing your identity with potential customers. One of the best books written on online branding is "Revenge of Brand X", written by Rob Frankel. Rob really goes in depth about branding and his book covers a lot of detail. You can purchase a copy by going to: http://www.freecoolcash.com/cgi-bin/lnkinlte.cgi?l=brandx The Internet has created a level playing field for all competitors. Competitors need to differentiate themselves to win the customer. A good brand name translates into a bigger market share on the Internet. A bigger market share means larger sales and bigger profits. Now forget about cows when it comes to branding and get moooooooooooooooving... I know, I know, that was even more cheesy. Copyright 2001 Gauher Chaudhry, All Rights Reserved. ------------------------------------- About the Author... Gauher Chaudhry is editor of Cool Cash Ezine. You can subscribe by sending an email to subscribe at freecoolcash.com with "sub-art" in the subject. Join Gauher's two-tier affiliate program by promoting his latest book "EZ Money With Ezines." Gauher teaches individuals how to make thousands of dollars in the ezine publishing business! http://www.ezmoneywithezines.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Member Showcase =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Examine carefully - Those with email addresses included WILL TRADE LINKS with you... You are encouraged to contact them. There Are Many Ways To Build A Successful Business - Just look at these successful sites & programs other members are involved in... ------------------------------------------------- "Affiliate Program on Steroids!" Pays 70% Multi-Tiered Commissions for Internet Domain Sales: A Multi-Billion Dollar, Fast Growing, Profitable Global Industry. http://www.wealthmaker.ws Trade Links: mailto:Lori at my.ws ------------------------------------------------------------- Celebration Sale! $99.00 on Casinos/Sportsbetting sites, Lingerie stores, Gift Stores, Adult Sites & Toy Stores. Mention Ad#BMLM99 to receive this special sale price. Order Now! http://www.cyberopps.com/?=BMLM99 ------------------------------------------------------------- OVER 7168 SITES TO PLACE YOUR FREE AD! Get immediate FREE exposure on thousands of sites. Plus two FREE programs that will AUTOMATICALLY type your ad for you! Pay one time, promote all the time. http://www.hitekhosting.net/cgi-bin/club_click.cgi?ID2932 ------------------------------------------------------------- We have a 260 page catalog with over 3000 gift items for men, women, children - A gift for everyone. We show 100 gift items on our web site alone, with the catalog you have access to the rest. We also feel we have the best prices on the web. Visit at http://www.treasuresoftomorrow.net Trade Links - george1932me at yahoo.com -------------------------------------------------------------- If you have a product, service, opportunity or quality merchandise that appeals to people worldwide, reach your targeted audience! For a fraction of what other large newsletters charge you can exhibit your website here, and trade links for only $8 CPM.  Compare that to the industry average of $10-$15 CPM. Why?... Because as a valuable member we want you to be successful! Order today - Showcases are limited and published on a first come, first serve basis. For our secure order form, click here: http://bannersgomlm.com/ezine =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Commentary Quick Tips =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Words of Wisdom: I hope I don't offend anyone with this! It just seems that, unless you are already successful, no one listens to what you have to say! I'd like to remind people that some of the greatest minds in history, such as Albert Einstein were not only poor, but considered to be crazy! Sometimes its the "little people" who have the most to share! It doesn't always take an EXPENSIVE product to generate a LOT OF $$$ - look at the PET ROCK!!! What was the cost or education required for that??? A little creativity can go a LONG WAY!! Submitted by JCW http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/jcw2001/resourcecenter/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do you have a marketing hint, product recommendation, or online gem of wisdom you'd like to share with your fellow subscribers? With your 2 - 10 line Quick Tip include your name and URL or email address and we'll give you credit for your words of wisdom. And, if you're looking for free advertising, this isn't the place - check out the 'One Question Survey' below for a great free advertising offer. Send it in to mailto:Submit at AEOpublishing.com with 'Quick Tip' in the Subject block. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Win A FREE Ad In Community & Commentary =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To keep this interesting, how about this, every month we'll draw a name from the replies and that person will win one Sponsorship Showcase in the Community & Commentary, for FREE. That's a value of over $800.00! Respond to each weekly survey, and increase your chances to win with four separate entries. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To change your subscribed address, send both new and old address to mailto:Submit at AEOpublishing.com See the link (below) for our Subscription Center to unsubscribe or edit your interests. Please send suggestions and comments to: mailto:Editor at AEOpublishing.com I invite you to send your real successes and showcase your strategies and techniques, or yes, even your total bombs, "Working Together We Can All Prosper." mailto:Submit at AEOpublishing.com For information on how to sponsor Your Membership Community & Commentary visit: http://bannersgomlm.com/ezine Copyright 2001 AEOpublishing.com ------------------------------------------------ web: http://www.AEOpublishing.com ------------------------------------------------ This email has been sent to cypherpunks at cyberpass.net at your request, by Your Membership Newsletter Services. Visit our Subscription Center to edit your interests or unsubscribe. http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/d.jsp?p=oo&id=bd7n7877.t8ps96a6&m=bd7n7877&ea=cypherpunks at cyberpass.net View our privacy policy: http://ccprod.roving.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Powered by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 21584 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cyts at public.bta.net.cn Thu Aug 9 22:39:10 2001 From: cyts at public.bta.net.cn (cyts at public.bta.net.cn) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 05:39:10 GMT Subject: want porn but you have no credit card? Message-ID: <200108100539.FAA22869@www5.mistral.co.uk> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (cyts at public.bta.net.cn) on Friday, August 10, 2001 at 05:39:10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Join for free Today. Free Memberships. Free Downloads. No Credit Cards Needed. HUGE Celebrity selection from Jennifer Lopez to Britney Spears. Also Specializing Streaming Video, Live sex shows for every desire! This isn't one of those crummy scams where you have to use a credit card! Take a look and you'll see. Enter Here






You recived this email because you subscribed to a mailing list. If you would like to be removed from this mailing list please Click Here!






--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From drevil at sidereal.kz Thu Aug 9 23:11:28 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 10 Aug 2001 06:11:28 -0000 Subject: Making text difficult for OCR? In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010809093704.0332a940@idiom.com> (message from Bill Stewart on Thu, 09 Aug 2001 21:04:47 -0700) References: <20010809080833.11532.qmail@sidereal.kz> <5.0.2.1.1.20010809093704.0332a940@idiom.com> Message-ID: <20010810061128.16726.qmail@sidereal.kz> > It depends a lot on your threat model. If the people who want a copy > are determined enough, they'll just retype it :-) Which is exactly what I want! Basically, I need to create a web page which is "humans only beyond this point". One task that humans can do easily and reliably is read messy characters. Computers can't. But computers can generate messy characters. Therefore, computers can detect whether they are interacting with other computers, or humans. There are all kinds of other threat models. I know that JYA often receives redacted stuff, and he puts it on a photocopier, and he is often able to enhance the contrast and read stuff that has been blacked out. Cool! But I'm working on a different problem. Basically, I have a web site that lets you reserve domain names before you pay for them. I want to make sure that no loser out there decides to be cool and write a script which reserves every word in the dictionary, or every sequence of eight characters, or some moronic thing like that. So I will have the page display three characters, somewhat blurry, and say, "type these characters here!" If they don't match, you're not human! (Why didn't they think of this simple method in Terminator and Blade Runner?) This same moron could sit there and type domain names all day long, but that's enough punishment in itself. This use would apply to any kind of site that lets you register (or otherwise consume resources) for free, and people might have some motive for creating an auto-script. I'm also going to use the same system on a financial system I'm working on to prevent automated transactions, as part of my anti-money-laundry effort. > So instead of having to find the black stuff on the white background, > or the yellow stuff on the blue background, it's having to find the > green and cyan dither stuff and the aqua and turquoise dither stuff > on the blue and indigo dither background and the indigo and purple background, > and further down the page you've shuffled other colors in and out of the mix. That's a good idea. If some moron decides to somehow come up with an OCR good enough to read stuff like this: http://www.sidereal.kz/~drevil/anti-ocr.png, then I'll have to move to more advanced methods. From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 10 06:52:37 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 06:52:37 -0700 Subject: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique In-Reply-To: <3B730B94.178DA957@lsil.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010809140012.007ebe00@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010810065237.008fa870@pop.sprynet.com> At 03:15 PM 8/9/01 -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >David Honig wrote: >> >> Yes, but it would resolve whether software could find the trojan >> or whether you have to check your cables for extra lumps. >So if it is SW and you write some little ring 0 code that repeatedly >walks the chain from the kyb input to your apps you'll feel safe? You're >assuming a one trick pony in a static world. > >Mike Well, I said only that knowing hardware xor software would tell you what you *could* do. I didn't say it would be *easy*. If you ran a file-system-integrity-checker and kept your checksums in a different system, you'd catch some changes. As well as your more directed search. The more the merrier; defense in depth. That being said, due diligence (vigilance?) requires the readers of this list to consider both, and countermeasures to same. And 'out of the box' hazards like video bugs in the smoke detector. dh From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 10 07:30:27 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:30:27 -0700 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108101430.f7AEUXY17230@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 10, 2001, at 02:48 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> What I've done in a couple of these "Send me bombz info" trolls is to >> use a remailer chain to send the AOL cop trollers some truly >> interesting stuff about Astrolite and how to make it. All available >> from online places (well, CNN yanked the Astrolite material after >> explosives experts whined that CNN had detailed info on ANFO). > > Anhydrous hydrazine is toxic (and carcinogenic), and difficult to get. > If > you want to assist evolution, point people towards something which can > be > easily bought, made, and something so sensitive no sensible person would > use. > But you don't believe these Bombz d00dz are actually seeking to make bombs, do you? It seems clear from the consistent language and the attempts to look like gangsta niggaz that these are _cops_ attempting to entice people into sending them bomb-making instructions. Sending them the usual stuff jokesters here send them, about eating beans and whatever, will be recognized even by THEM as jokes. Sending them actual documents on Astrolite, with more details than "mix fuel oil and fertilizer," may actually send them into a feeding frenzy. This is the idea, right? And if they are real gangsta niggaz, or real Neo-Nazis, maybe they'll blow something up. --Tim May From matt at rearviewmirror.org Fri Aug 10 07:40:43 2001 From: matt at rearviewmirror.org (Matt Beland) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:40:43 -0700 Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01081007404300.13844@minerva.rearviewmirror.org> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 934 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bob at black.org Fri Aug 10 07:51:12 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:51:12 -0700 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS FOR CLEANING THE GENE POOL Message-ID: <3B73F4DF.F1A56B72@black.org> At 11:48 AM 8/10/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: > >Anhydrous hydrazine is toxic (and carcinogenic), and difficult to get. If >you want to assist evolution, point people towards something which can be >easily bought, made, and something so sensitive no sensible person would >use. You could tell them to make a pound of NI3 but iodine is now a watched substance. Maybe a fuel-air (chechen special) with propane or acetylene? From mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net Thu Aug 9 23:11:52 2001 From: mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net (Anonymous Coredump) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:11:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Keylogger detection -- HookProtect Message-ID: Where's the source, Faustine? Why would anyone concerned about personal security want to use something like this? For all anybody knows, this was put together by some of your friends in NSA to lull the sheeple with fake security audits -- or maybe it finds key loggers, just not the ones the feebs install. Besides which it only runs on shitty M$-OS, nobody who is even the slightest concerned (and has clue) would trust that. If it aint linux, and ain't opensource, it ain't shit. Building something like this seems like a very cpunkerly thing to do -- the hardware logger is a question though. Keyboards are cheap, and you can buy throwaway $15 keyboards just to do keys with. Should we be concerned about them going so far as to switch motherobards, and, would they be able to manufacture the exact MB as what you had with a hardware key logger built in? Seems improbable -- not impossible, but there are a pretty big variety of MBs out there at this point. From bear at sonic.net Fri Aug 10 09:06:52 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:06:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR In-Reply-To: <20010810061128.16726.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: On 10 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: >blacked out. Cool! But I'm working on a different problem. >Basically, I have a web site that lets you reserve domain names before >you pay for them. I want to make sure that no loser out there decides >to be cool and write a script which reserves every word in the >dictionary, or every sequence of eight characters, or some moronic >thing like that. So I will have the page display three characters, >somewhat blurry, and say, "type these characters here!" If they don't >match, you're not human! (Why didn't they think of this simple method >in Terminator and Blade Runner?) This same moron could sit there and >type domain names all day long, but that's enough punishment in >itself. This is a case where I'd make them do some kind of computation before they could register a name. Frex, -- "here's a number, and here's a downloadable utility that does squaring under a modulus. Tell me what this number is, squared N times, under modulus X, and I'll let you register a domain name. " So, your typical user has to wait thirty seconds, which is no big deal, but the guy who's trying to register every word in a million- word dictionary is going to have to harness truly massive computing resources in order to do so. You can even linearize the computation (meaning it won't do them any good to sic multiple cpu's on it) if you make them submit numbers in a sequence for multiple registrations. (ie, first registration is number squared N times, second is number squared 2N times, third is number squared 6N times, etc....) Or, if you are keeping track of who registers what, which of course you must be for "register" to have any meaning, why not just refuse the tenth and subsequent registrations for any particular address? Even if the addresses are masked, you can still compare hashes of them. Bear From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 10 09:12:02 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:12:02 -0700 Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108101612.f7AGCFY18125@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 10, 2001, at 08:05 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: >> Tim May[SMTP:tcmay at got.net] wrote: >> 5) Fewer things criminal, but punish real crimes harshly. Instead of >> letting an arsonist off with a stern lecture while putting a kid >> selling >> blotter acid at a Dead concert in prison for 10 years, don't prosecute >> the kid and kill the arsonist. For thieves, put them on a work gang for >> several years. For murderers and rapists (real rapists, not Wimmin's >> Lib >> victims), kill them. >> 6) For cops found guilty of inserting toilet plungers into detainees, >> kill them. >> 7) For those involved in burning the Waco compound, kill them. >> And so on. >> > [This is really a separate and off-topic issue] I object to all killing > except in immediate and urgent defense of life and limb. I won't > attempt to persuade you here. But even if I were a serial killer > like Dubya, I would stop shy of killing rapists and other > non-murderers. If rape as well as murder carried the death penalty, > rapists (the real rapists you refer to) would be strongly motivated > to murder their victims - doing so eliminates the best (and usually > only) witness against them, and even if they are convicted, carries > no additional penalty - it's tough to make someone serve two > death sentences consecutively. Rape and murder both carry the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many/most other Islamic nations. Not a lot of rapes or murders in most of these countries (Indonesia a special case, some war-torn terror states are also special cases). There is some chance for what you describe, but the overall suppression of both will make for fewer cases than your analysis hints at. People fearing death if they rape will avoid the act in the first place, not rape...and then worry about getting rid of the witness. (Besides which, technologies are coming which make it harder for perps to get away with crimes like this. Encrypted WiFi escrow records of chemical scents and sounds, even images. Vastly better forensics, with rubbed-off DNA or deposited DNA linked to smells and fluids in public places....) >> But stop manufacturing police state thoughtcrimes and then using the >> courts to rubber-stamp hunting expeditions for more crimes revealed in >> papers and diaries and computer discs. >> > Agreed. Two other trends: 1) More use of laptops, tablets, and PDAs under personal control at all times, or most times. Locked up when not under personal control. Case design which makes it much harder to insert hardware bugs (pretty difficult to do so in a Palm or Visor...). 2) Working papers encrypted, even stored offshore, regardless of what Mr. Happy Fun Court is or is not amused by. The publicity about his Mafia guy having his computer bugged is probably helping others to think about security again. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 10 09:40:09 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:40:09 -0700 Subject: Infinity Bugs--A new can of worms? Message-ID: <200108101640.f7AGeGY18255@slack.lne.com> The "infinity bug" is alleged to be a device rendering any telephone, even one on-hook, capable of transmitting audio to a listener. Whether it's real is not the point. Could the LEAs and intelligence agencies be using the equivalent of infinity bugs in the computers of targets? Something that is sent to a user as an attachment or executable, a la the various worms and viruses, something that sends results of keystrokes, or passwords entries, or keyword searches? Items: * The alleged use of "registration sniffers" which Microsoft was alleged (probably wrongly) to have used a few years ago to scan the hard disks of users of its products and then this information--it was alleged--could be retrieved by MS at some point. (I say probably wrongly for reasons discussed a few years ago. Still, it suggests some possibilities, which is why I mention it now.) * The spoof Web pages, masquerading as real Web pages. A classic man-in-the-middle attack, analogous to building a fake ATM (on screen or even physical) around a real ATM. Even the "Web page shrinks to a 3 x 5 pixel dot and lingers on the screen where it is not noticed" method. (I don't remember what this was called, so I'm describing it.) * The SirCam thing, of course. My spoof about NIPC secret documents being sent out turned out not to be such a spoof after all, we heard a few days later. Suppose a much more refined and much more targeted version of SirCam was deposited on a target's computer? * We know there has been much funding of worms and viruses by the government...for more than a few years. There were _claims_ after the Gulf War that the U.S. had disabled some Iraqi systems with worms, viruses, trojans, etc. (Some of these claims were based on an "Infoworld" spoof reporting on viruses being sent to printers. But I expect _some_ of the claims may be based on fact.) * I read a French novel some years back called "Softwar," where a software bug is placed inside a supercomputer and is set to go off if ever a weather report has a specific combination of temperatures and wind speeds in a specific city. Poorly written (maybe it was the translation, maybe it was just typical French SF), but an interesting idea. * There were some cases years ago where Webcams, often built into monitors or left sitting on top of monitors permanently, could be turned-on remotely. Even more the case with built-in microphones. It'd be a hoot if the Feds are finding ways to turn on Webcams and microphones in homes and businesses. Even to leave trojans on a system for storing compressed snatches of audio. These items are just meant to suggest possibilities. Besides doing research to "protect" the computer infrastructure, it seems that using "remote viewing" is a potential good alternative to Carnivore and to breaking physically into homes. Maybe something like this is the bugging technology the FBI doesn't want to disclose in open court? Last point. As networks get so complex, with so many old legacy things left hanging on corporate Intranets, on LANs and WANs and wireless nets (another can of worms, so to speak), more and more opportunities for depositing little bits of code to sniff passwords, to search for keywords, to turn on microphones and cameras. It's a place I'd be putting some money into, were I the CIA, DEA, FBI, or any of a dozen other agencies. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 10 09:47:02 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:47:02 -0700 Subject: BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108101647.f7AGl9w18327@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 10, 2001, at 08:58 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: > Enough bomb-making slapstick, already. This is not bomb-punks. > Afraid the Texas authorities have already linked you to bomb information? Afraid that those who planned the Waco raid out of Texas offices are worried about being truck-bombed themselves? In any case, the soliciting of bomb-making instructions has been happening on this list since shortly after the Swinestein bitch started planning to outlaw bomb-making instructions sent over the Internet. A lot of us think the very similar wordings are the result of a concerted effort to solicit such instructions. Giving them the real details on mix ratios for Astrolite and detonation timing patterns may get Fineswine's panties in a bunch. Sounds good to me. --Tim May From lists at politechbot.com Fri Aug 10 06:48:33 2001 From: lists at politechbot.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:48:33 -0400 Subject: More censorware stupidity, from the anti-spam camp References: Message-ID: <20010810094833.C27714@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 01:07:29PM -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote: > If/when MAPS dies, this problem is going to *explode*. Hardly anyone > used ORBS and this has already caused a lot of people severe headaches > that still continue. But, maybe the problem will be so big if/when > that happens that blacklists will largely be simply abandoned. In principle I'm not sure if this is a terribly difficult problem to solve. If the costs to subscribing to antispamlists are still not as great as the (growing) problem of spam, admins will still want a service and someone will probably create it. Given sufficient demand of this sort, a standard interface may well emerge. This would allow sites to subscribe to a antispamlist maintainer uber-service that would selectively add and drop MAPS/ORBS/etc. as they become more and less useful. This may be a pay service. It would allow ISPs and individual users not to worry about what happens if one service dies; within a few moments, one hopes, the maintainer service would remove it. Queries would go to the maintainer service, not the individual antispamlists. The maintainer service could also provide the useful feature of a standard interface; give it an IP address and it would query the antispamlist vendors using their individual different protocols. > NB: I'm not against individual spam filtering - I do it agressively > myself, and subscribe to several group-maintained *invidual-use* > blacklists that I've chosen to trust (more or less). I'm referring to > ISP-level "stealth blocking", esp. that based on the technical > capabilities of the sending site, rather than said site being a known > spam house. Obviously ISPs see a benefit to using antispamlists. Just arguing against them isn't very persuasive; it doesn't give them a way to solve their growing spam problem. If EFF is concerned about this policy area (and I recognize it may be just your personal opinion), it may want to provide the useful service of recommending ways to improve the protocols and what marketing flacks call "best practices." If people begin to care about what you call stealth blocking, ISPs will probably begin to disclose it. Perhaps an ISP trade association will recommend a link on the home page. Then you could take your business to an ISP, if you care enough, that does not subscribe to antispamlists -- as long as you're willing to pay more because of the additional bandwidth, storage, and personnel costs imposed by the higher volume of spam. -Declan From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 10 09:57:08 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:57:08 -0700 Subject: BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108101657.JAA2027796@meer.meer.net> On Friday, August 10, 2001, at 09:06 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote: > On 10 Aug 2001, Secret Squirrel wrote: > >> Why not nitroglycerin? The components are very easy to get -- nitric >> acid and glycerine. > > Easy to get? Haven't seen concentrated acids being sold at Walmart so > far. > Even if, nitrating polyols is nontrivial, especially in large batches, > by > novices. You'd rather defoliate your garden before. > > Hey, is ammonium nitrate fertilizer a watched substance yet? > > Has been for years. Most fertilizer sold to the proles at garden supply stores is now stuff like ammonium sulfate. It used to be that all it took to order fuming nitric was a phone call and a credit card number to a chemical supply house. I expect (but don't know) that this is no longer quite so easy to do. Probably more due to the proliferation of meth labs than fears about bomb-making--lots of "precursors" and "ingredients" are now less available. (Turns out my little area of canyons and hills has had three major meth lab busts in the past two years. Those with access to deep newspaper archives online, more than what Google offers, can search on these roads: Eureka Canyon Road, Corralitos Ridge Road, Eno Lane, and Redwood Gulch. Meth labs out the wazoo are tucked-into these hollers. Local cops say that for every one busted, there are likely to be 5 others. Crystal, ice, rock, crank...) --Tim May From declan at well.com Fri Aug 10 07:06:00 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:06:00 -0400 Subject: Anti-spam, protocols, and the market at work Message-ID: <20010810100559.B28131@cluebot.com> This exchange is about writing code, somewhat cypherpunkly. --- From mmotyka at lsil.com Fri Aug 10 10:06:38 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:06:38 -0700 Subject: Mind Rape Message-ID: <3B74149E.2C68BFD2@lsil.com> the data as memory thing is years old and now we've come full circle and arrived at the same old conclusion that RIGHT can be very, very wrong so now it's time for someone to say the laws of mathematics not of men and I'm thinking the glass is half empty most days but not all yet From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 10 08:07:17 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:07:17 -0500 Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] In-Reply-To: <20010810110319.A7665@weathership.homeport.org> Message-ID: Shostack: > Jeffrey Rosen writes about this in "The Unwanted Gaze." He recounts > the story of John Wilkes, an MP in the 1760s whose diaries were > seized, and how the law evolved from allowing only the seizure of > contraband, and not papers for use as "mere evidence." I found it an > entertaining read for $13, and there was useful historical context and > interesting tidbits. > > The trends Tim describes would have been very familiar to the > founders, and have been going on for longer than 20 or 40 years. > > Adam That's why I cited to Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886): ...The principal question, however, remains to be considered. Is a search and seizure or, what is equivalent thereto, a compulsory production of a man's private papers, to be used in evidence against him in a proceeding to forfeit his property for alleged fraud against the revenue laws--is such a proceeding for such a purpose an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?.... As before stated, the Act of 1863 was the first Act in this country, and we might say either in this country or in England, so far as we have been able to ascertain, which authorized the search and seizure of a man's private papers or the compulsory production of them, for the purpose of using them in evidence against him in a criminal case, or in a proceeding to enforce the forfeiture of his property. Even the Act under which the obnoxious writs of assistance were issued did not go as far as this, but only authorized the examination of ships and vessels and persons found therein, for the purpose of finding goods prohibited to be imported or exported, or on which the duties were not paid; and to enter into and search any suspected vaults, cellars or warehouses for such goods. The search for and seizure of stolen or forfeited goods or goods liable to duties and concealed to avoid the payment thereof are totally different things from a search for and seizure of a man's private books and papers for the purpose of obtaining information therein contained, or of using them as evidence against him. The two things differ toto coelo. (Boyd was 'done away with' in Adams v. New York.) ~Aimee From amaha at vsnl.net Fri Aug 10 08:16:14 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:16:14 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108101516.f7AFGEH05039@ak47.algebra.com> ================================================== ================================================== Singleness of purpose is the chief essential for success in life, no matter what may be one's aim. --John D. Rockefeller Jr. ================================================== ================================================== ================================================== Incredible Saving! Spend less on your long distance calls with rates as low as 2.9 cents/min, NO FEES! Visit "http://LD.net/?amaha" _______________________________________________________ "Car Secrets Revealed - Automotive tips on car buying, lease, repair rip-offs, automobile insurance reduction, and hundreds more". Click here now to find out how to buy/lease almost any new car at $50.00 over dealer cost. "http://www.carsecrets.com/t.cgi/645872/" _______________________________________________________ Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy.If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy ================================================= From ming at planetmongo.net Fri Aug 10 10:27:13 2001 From: ming at planetmongo.net (ming) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Keylogger detection -- HookProtect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is obviously the most basic and crude, but: www.keykatcher.com Sold as a tool for parents to watch over their porn-obsessed toddlers.. Yeah, I'm sure. ming [This is a sig file] On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Anonymous Coredump wrote: > Where's the source, Faustine? Why would anyone concerned about > personal security want to use something like this? For all anybody > knows, this was put together by some of your friends in NSA to > lull the sheeple with fake security audits -- or maybe it finds > key loggers, just not the ones the feebs install. > Besides which it only runs on shitty M$-OS, nobody who is even > the slightest concerned (and has clue) would trust that. If it aint > linux, and ain't opensource, it ain't shit. > Building something like this seems like a very cpunkerly thing > to do -- the hardware logger is a question though. Keyboards are cheap, and you > can buy throwaway $15 keyboards just to do keys with. Should we be > concerned about them going so far as to switch motherobards, and, would > they be able to manufacture the exact MB as what you had with a hardware > key logger built in? Seems improbable -- not impossible, but there are > a pretty big variety of MBs out there at this point. From pr at grokster.com Fri Aug 10 10:31:51 2001 From: pr at grokster.com (pr at grokster.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:31:51 -0700 Subject: Grokster: Next Generation File Sharing Message-ID: <200108101731.KAA29671@www.prosapia.com> Sirs! We would like you to consider using/reviewing the Next Generation File Sharing tool. It is called Grokster and can be seen at www.Grokster.com Grokster accesses over 400,000+ online users through the FastTrack P2P Stack. Grokster is the latest generation of file sharing software. The Grokster generation of file sharing presents these exciting features: * Peer-to-Peer: True person to person file searches and transfers. * Fast Searches: Unlike Gnutella type programs, Grokster's SuperNode technology provides for very fast searches. * Detailed Searches: The Grokster technology tracks detailed file info and allows detailed searches on it. * No Incomplete/Failed Downloads: Grokster automatically removes incomplete downloads. * Auto Resume: Grokster will automatically seek out the same file from multiple sources and continue downloading until complete. * Fastest Downloads: Grokster will download the file from multiple sources with the fastest connections as fast as you can download, automatically. * File Preview: Preview files as you start downloading them. * All File Types: Share any type of file. * Full Bandwidth Controls: Grokster allows for full contol uploads/downloads and total bandwidth. This is a one time email. You will receive no other emails from us. Thank you for your time. Cheers relations at grokster.com http://www.grokster.com Grokster: Next Generation File Sharing From hseaver at ameritech.net Fri Aug 10 08:36:36 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:36:36 -0500 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS References: Message-ID: <3B73FF81.E417C4FB@ameritech.net> Where is the US law that prohibits the publishing of bomb plans, explosives recipes, etc. Swinestein, et al tried to get one passed, but it didn't fly --- or is this like the "black bag jobs" legislation that didn't get passed but is being used anyway? -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 10 08:58:48 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:58:48 -0500 Subject: BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <20010810154201.14801.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: Enough bomb-making slapstick, already. This is not bomb-punks. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of Secret Squirrel > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 10:42 AM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: BOMB PLANS > > > Why not nitroglycerin? The components are very easy to get -- nitric > acid and glycerine. > > Leitl spake: > > >On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> What I've done in a couple of these "Send me bombz info" trolls is to > >> use a remailer chain to send the AOL cop trollers some truly > >> interesting stuff about Astrolite and how to make it. All available > >> from online places (well, CNN yanked the Astrolite material after > >> explosives experts whined that CNN had detailed info on ANFO). > > > >Anhydrous hydrazine is toxic (and carcinogenic), and difficult to get. If > >you want to assist evolution, point people towards something which can be > >easily bought, made, and something so sensitive no sensible person would > >use. From grocha at neutraldomain.org Fri Aug 10 11:00:44 2001 From: grocha at neutraldomain.org (Gabriel Rocha) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:00:44 -0700 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: ; from Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de on Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 05:24:22PM +0200 References: <200108101430.f7AEUXY17230@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010810110044.I7334@neutraldomain.org> ,----[ On Fri, Aug 10, at 05:24PM, Eugene Leitl wrote: ]-------------- | > Sending them actual documents on Astrolite, with more details than | > "mix fuel oil and fertilizer," may actually send them into a feeding | > frenzy. This is the idea, right? | | IANAL, can this be used as a pretense to shut the list down? Well, I am a nobody (perhaps a new acronym, IAAN, ok, bad joke.) I'd imagine that it would be something against whoever sends them the bomb plans, rather than the list itself, feels kind of like them throwing a fishing line into a huge pond and waiting for a bite, so to speak. | | > And if they are real gangsta niggaz, or real Neo-Nazis, maybe they'll | > blow something up. | | I've noticed even smart novices can't follow a recipe. It's hard to | imagine they'd manage to blow up themselves or somebody else without a lot | of handholding. Well, if you send someone bomb plans and it is widely documented that you are the source of the bomb making plans, then perhaps (I guess wildly here.) you could be held liable in some way, kind of the like the MacGyver reference someone made awhile back about that show's accuracy in depicting different chemical mixtures and their affects and kids doing stupid things. Also, they could have nothing to do with Cops(tm) of Gangsta Nigaz(tm) and they could just be stupid kids...Let the flames roll. --gabe `----[ End Quote ]--------------------------- -- "It's not brave, if you're not scared." From adam at homeport.org Fri Aug 10 08:03:19 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:03:19 -0400 Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] In-Reply-To: <200108092223.f79MNM513113@slack.lne.com> References: <200108092223.f79MNM513113@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010810110319.A7665@weathership.homeport.org> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:23:05PM -0700, Tim May wrote: | And I think writings on a computer are no more special than writings in | journals and letters and personal papers. Many of the Founders and their | contemporaries were _prodigious_ writers, generating thousands of notes | and letters a year. Many were ardent diarists. | | They would agree, I'm sure, with our current revulsion for having | fishing expeditions where the King's men root around in papers looking | for thoughtcrimes and evidence of conspiracies. | | I'm not a historian, but I don't recall hearing about many "take all of | the papers and diaries in the house" raids on people in the 1800s. Most | court cases were about alleged actual crimes, not thoughtcrimes. | (Perhaps during the persecution of the Mormons in Missouri there were | zealous prosecutors and judges who ordered all papers sifted through. As | I said, I'm not a historian.) Jeffrey Rosen writes about this in "The Unwanted Gaze." He recounts the story of John Wilkes, an MP in the 1760s whose diaries were seized, and how the law evolved from allowing only the seizure of contraband, and not papers for use as "mere evidence." I found it an entertaining read for $13, and there was useful historical context and interesting tidbits. The trends Tim describes would have been very familiar to the founders, and have been going on for longer than 20 or 40 years. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Fri Aug 10 08:05:57 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:05:57 -0400 Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] Message-ID: > Tim May[SMTP:tcmay at got.net] wrote: > > On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 01:55 PM, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards > > an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the > > contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as > > inviolate, > > as the contents of our heads. > > > > To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, > > our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively > > feel they should be just as intimately held. > > > > We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of > > knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at > > the > > time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of > > accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' > > rather than 'memories'. > > I agree with your sentiments, but not where I think you are going with > this. > > Importantly, there is nothing in the Constitution about "memories" have > special protection. There is "secure in one's papers and possessions," > there is language about under what conditions a person may be compelled > to testify, but there is no special protection or language about > "memories." > Well, the 5th protects one from having to testify against oneself. I'm not going trying to go Choatian on you (is he on vacation?) but the personal data I store on a machine which I own, have sole access to, and which I stored with no immediate intention to show to others, seems to have properties more similar to a personal memory than does a piece of paper in a file cabinet at my accountant's office. That being the case, being forced to divulge my personal data, to be used against me, *feels* like the sort of thing the 5th was meant to prevent. [Lets not get into particular legal arguments at this point - I'm talking about my gut reactions.] > And I think writings on a computer are no more special than writings in > journals and letters and personal papers. Many of the Founders and their > contemporaries were _prodigious_ writers, generating thousands of notes > and letters a year. Many were ardent diarists. > They were also ardent burners of old personal papers. Part of Faustine's point is that with a keylogger, there is no private space outside the skull. The simplest drafting out of an idea - including ideas that may be immediatly discarded as wrong/immoral/illegal/unworkable - become known to the eavesdropper. [good stuff deleted] > The problem is not that "memories" are being seized. The problem is that > "secure in one's papers and possessions" has become a joke, a null and > void idea. > > The solution is pretty obvious to most liberty-minded folks: > > 1) End the War on (Some) Drugs. This will eliminate most trafficking, > distribution, money laundering, and gang war crimes. > The Economist recently (July 26) ran a special report (10-15 pages) on the diasaster that is US drug policy, with a set of strong arguments in favor of legalisation. It'd be worth your time to read it: http://www.economist.com/background/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=706591 and following articles, with an editorial at http://www.economist.com/background/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=709603 [deleted] > 5) Fewer things criminal, but punish real crimes harshly. Instead of > letting an arsonist off with a stern lecture while putting a kid selling > blotter acid at a Dead concert in prison for 10 years, don't prosecute > the kid and kill the arsonist. For thieves, put them on a work gang for > several years. For murderers and rapists (real rapists, not Wimmin's Lib > victims), kill them. > 6) For cops found guilty of inserting toilet plungers into detainees, > kill them. > 7) For those involved in burning the Waco compound, kill them. > And so on. > [This is really a separate and off-topic issue] I object to all killing except in immediate and urgent defense of life and limb. I won't attempt to persuade you here. But even if I were a serial killer like Dubya, I would stop shy of killing rapists and other non-murderers. If rape as well as murder carried the death penalty, rapists (the real rapists you refer to) would be strongly motivated to murder their victims - doing so eliminates the best (and usually only) witness against them, and even if they are convicted, carries no additional penalty - it's tough to make someone serve two death sentences consecutively. > But stop manufacturing police state thoughtcrimes and then using the > courts to rubber-stamp hunting expeditions for more crimes revealed in > papers and diaries and computer discs. > Agreed. > --Tim May > Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Fri Aug 10 08:05:57 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:05:57 -0400 Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] Message-ID: > Tim May[SMTP:tcmay at got.net] wrote: > > On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 01:55 PM, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards > > an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the > > contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as > > inviolate, > > as the contents of our heads. > > > > To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, > > our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively > > feel they should be just as intimately held. > > > > We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of > > knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at > > the > > time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of > > accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' > > rather than 'memories'. > > I agree with your sentiments, but not where I think you are going with > this. > > Importantly, there is nothing in the Constitution about "memories" have > special protection. There is "secure in one's papers and possessions," > there is language about under what conditions a person may be compelled > to testify, but there is no special protection or language about > "memories." > Well, the 5th protects one from having to testify against oneself. I'm not going trying to go Choatian on you (is he on vacation?) but the personal data I store on a machine which I own, have sole access to, and which I stored with no immediate intention to show to others, seems to have properties more similar to a personal memory than does a piece of paper in a file cabinet at my accountant's office. That being the case, being forced to divulge my personal data, to be used against me, *feels* like the sort of thing the 5th was meant to prevent. [Lets not get into particular legal arguments at this point - I'm talking about my gut reactions.] > And I think writings on a computer are no more special than writings in > journals and letters and personal papers. Many of the Founders and their > contemporaries were _prodigious_ writers, generating thousands of notes > and letters a year. Many were ardent diarists. > They were also ardent burners of old personal papers. Part of Faustine's point is that with a keylogger, there is no private space outside the skull. The simplest drafting out of an idea - including ideas that may be immediatly discarded as wrong/immoral/illegal/unworkable - become known to the eavesdropper. [good stuff deleted] > The problem is not that "memories" are being seized. The problem is that > "secure in one's papers and possessions" has become a joke, a null and > void idea. > > The solution is pretty obvious to most liberty-minded folks: > > 1) End the War on (Some) Drugs. This will eliminate most trafficking, > distribution, money laundering, and gang war crimes. > The Economist recently (July 26) ran a special report (10-15 pages) on the diasaster that is US drug policy, with a set of strong arguments in favor of legalisation. It'd be worth your time to read it: http://www.economist.com/background/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=706591 and following articles, with an editorial at http://www.economist.com/background/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=709603 [deleted] > 5) Fewer things criminal, but punish real crimes harshly. Instead of > letting an arsonist off with a stern lecture while putting a kid selling > blotter acid at a Dead concert in prison for 10 years, don't prosecute > the kid and kill the arsonist. For thieves, put them on a work gang for > several years. For murderers and rapists (real rapists, not Wimmin's Lib > victims), kill them. > 6) For cops found guilty of inserting toilet plungers into detainees, > kill them. > 7) For those involved in burning the Waco compound, kill them. > And so on. > [This is really a separate and off-topic issue] I object to all killing except in immediate and urgent defense of life and limb. I won't attempt to persuade you here. But even if I were a serial killer like Dubya, I would stop shy of killing rapists and other non-murderers. If rape as well as murder carried the death penalty, rapists (the real rapists you refer to) would be strongly motivated to murder their victims - doing so eliminates the best (and usually only) witness against them, and even if they are convicted, carries no additional penalty - it's tough to make someone serve two death sentences consecutively. > But stop manufacturing police state thoughtcrimes and then using the > courts to rubber-stamp hunting expeditions for more crimes revealed in > papers and diaries and computer discs. > Agreed. > --Tim May > Peter Trei From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Fri Aug 10 11:28:01 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:28:01 -0700 Subject: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) Message-ID: <20010810182801.AAA26329+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa.us> Eugene Leitl writes: > A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less. The we won't tell the joke about the bus going over the cliff with one empty seat. :) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Philip Kingston > Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his > business was child porn, I've always regarded liability for content as a binary situation. Either one is or one isn't. The reading and viewing preferences of ones customers are hardly something under ones control. Does a library acquire liability when 40% of its customers look at the most controversial books? Does an ISP suddenly become liable for the contents of its news spool, if 40% of its customers should decide to investigate the naked children newsgroups? I think putting people in jail for knowing about content they have no control over is a very bad idea. Most adult sites located in more lax jurisdictions carry a variety of material, only some of which is in violation of US laws. Since not one of the Reedys' customers was charged with downloading any specific illegal image at the two foreign sites, and the 100 arrests were produced by an entirely separate entrapment scheme targeting the Reedys' customer base, it seems unlikely that evidence linking specific customers to specific images exists. At most we can say that the two sites containing some illegal (in the US) material reached an embarrassingly high level of popularity, and were visited by numerous people, some of whom may have looked at stuff the US Government forbids. Or may not have, for that matter. > he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn," Of course, this is one BIG problem with child porn laws. No one can look at the site to see if what is being said about it is the truth. The claim that the Landslide Web site had a clickable link with the actual text "Click here for child porn" was made by an investigator who looked at the site, and was widely repeated in the press. I have been unable to independently coroborate this, and quite frankly, it's real hard to believe, especially since the site was supposedly operating according to well-clued legal advice. Anyone who could put up a mirror of the site stripped of potentially illegal images and artwork would be doing everyone who wants to verify amazing allegations like this a big favor. I'll go on record as being skeptical "Click here for child porn" was prominently displayed. > and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of > child porn. Again, that Mr. Ready may have downloaded images that were illegal in the US is not a crime meriting life in prison, and orthogonal to the entire age verification/liability for content question. > I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing > access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be > the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line. I would argue that if one does not have liability for content, whether one is aware the content is illegal is immaterial. > However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child > porn. It's about whether the government should be able to jail people child pornographers purchase goods and services from, when they are unable to get their hands on the child pornographers, who aren't breaking any major laws in their own jurisdiction. It's also about the Feebs getting their hands on the Reedys' not insignificant assets. Could Kodak executives be "child pornographers" if 40% of the images taken with some inexpensive digital camera they manufacture were demonstrated to be of tumescent child genitalia? Would this change if they were aware of this use? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Fri Aug 10 11:28:01 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:28:01 -0700 Subject: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) Message-ID: <20010810182801.AAA26329+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa. us> Eugene Leitl writes: > A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less. The we won't tell the joke about the bus going over the cliff with one empty seat. :) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Philip Kingston > Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his > business was child porn, I've always regarded liability for content as a binary situation. Either one is or one isn't. The reading and viewing preferences of ones customers are hardly something under ones control. Does a library acquire liability when 40% of its customers look at the most controversial books? Does an ISP suddenly become liable for the contents of its news spool, if 40% of its customers should decide to investigate the naked children newsgroups? I think putting people in jail for knowing about content they have no control over is a very bad idea. Most adult sites located in more lax jurisdictions carry a variety of material, only some of which is in violation of US laws. Since not one of the Reedys' customers was charged with downloading any specific illegal image at the two foreign sites, and the 100 arrests were produced by an entirely separate entrapment scheme targeting the Reedys' customer base, it seems unlikely that evidence linking specific customers to specific images exists. At most we can say that the two sites containing some illegal (in the US) material reached an embarrassingly high level of popularity, and were visited by numerous people, some of whom may have looked at stuff the US Government forbids. Or may not have, for that matter. > he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn," Of course, this is one BIG problem with child porn laws. No one can look at the site to see if what is being said about it is the truth. The claim that the Landslide Web site had a clickable link with the actual text "Click here for child porn" was made by an investigator who looked at the site, and was widely repeated in the press. I have been unable to independently coroborate this, and quite frankly, it's real hard to believe, especially since the site was supposedly operating according to well-clued legal advice. Anyone who could put up a mirror of the site stripped of potentially illegal images and artwork would be doing everyone who wants to verify amazing allegations like this a big favor. I'll go on record as being skeptical "Click here for child porn" was prominently displayed. > and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of > child porn. Again, that Mr. Ready may have downloaded images that were illegal in the US is not a crime meriting life in prison, and orthogonal to the entire age verification/liability for content question. > I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing > access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be > the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line. I would argue that if one does not have liability for content, whether one is aware the content is illegal is immaterial. > However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child > porn. It's about whether the government should be able to jail people child pornographers purchase goods and services from, when they are unable to get their hands on the child pornographers, who aren't breaking any major laws in their own jurisdiction. It's also about the Feebs getting their hands on the Reedys' not insignificant assets. Could Kodak executives be "child pornographers" if 40% of the images taken with some inexpensive digital camera they manufacture were demonstrated to be of tumescent child genitalia? Would this change if they were aware of this use? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 02:48:09 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:48:09 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <200108091738.f79Hc2510280@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > What I've done in a couple of these "Send me bombz info" trolls is to > use a remailer chain to send the AOL cop trollers some truly > interesting stuff about Astrolite and how to make it. All available > from online places (well, CNN yanked the Astrolite material after > explosives experts whined that CNN had detailed info on ANFO). Anhydrous hydrazine is toxic (and carcinogenic), and difficult to get. If you want to assist evolution, point people towards something which can be easily bought, made, and something so sensitive no sensible person would use. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 02:51:01 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:51:01 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 802.11b is just the transport layer, Consume Net people have been recently using Mobile Mesh http://www.mitre.org/tech_transfer/mobilemesh/ rather successfully. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 02:51:01 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:51:01 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 802.11b is just the transport layer, Consume Net people have been recently using Mobile Mesh http://www.mitre.org/tech_transfer/mobilemesh/ rather successfully. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From mbutkovs at decef.elf.stuba.sk Fri Aug 10 02:59:32 2001 From: mbutkovs at decef.elf.stuba.sk (Matrrtin Butkovsky) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:59:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Adult Friend Finder Password! Message-ID: Hi, I should like to ask you to send me password to Adult Friend Finder. Thank you very much. Bye. From vnadinic at cursor.hr Fri Aug 10 04:21:43 2001 From: vnadinic at cursor.hr (Vjenceslav Nadinic) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:21:43 +0200 Subject: remove Message-ID: <000b01c1218e$a59e6b60$6a00000a@activmedia.hr> From vjenceslav.nadinic at caatoosee.hr Fri Aug 10 04:21:59 2001 From: vjenceslav.nadinic at caatoosee.hr (Vjenceslav Nadinic) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:21:59 +0200 Subject: remove Message-ID: <001801c1218e$ae922310$6a00000a@activmedia.hr> remove From vnadinic at cursor.hr Fri Aug 10 04:22:08 2001 From: vnadinic at cursor.hr (Vjenceslav Nadinic) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:22:08 +0200 Subject: remove Message-ID: <002201c1218e$b47dcae0$6a00000a@activmedia.hr> remove From vjenceslav.nadinic at caatoosee.hr Fri Aug 10 04:22:18 2001 From: vjenceslav.nadinic at caatoosee.hr (Vjenceslav Nadinic) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:22:18 +0200 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <002901c1218e$ba604af0$6a00000a@activmedia.hr> remove From bob at black.org Fri Aug 10 13:25:25 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:25:25 -0700 Subject: Fun at Walmart, FAM for Gophers (Re: BOMB PLANS) Message-ID: <3B744335.41CC6E42@black.org> At 06:06 PM 8/10/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On 10 Aug 2001, Secret Squirrel wrote: > >> Why not nitroglycerin? The components are very easy to get -- nitric >> acid and glycerine. > >Easy to get? Haven't seen concentrated acids being sold at Walmart so far. 34% HCl sold by the gallon H2SO4 in plumbum batteries nitrate salts in the gardening area polyols in antifreeze, in the automotive section pyrex, heatplate, etc. in cookwares :-) >Hey, is ammonium nitrate fertilizer a watched substance yet? Yes, in prilled form. Wonder if its still used in those sports-injury instant-cold bags that I used to recrystallize it from in my youth... ........ Fuel-Air Munitions for Gophers http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAW894O4QC.html FARM SCENE: California Farmers Use Low-Tech Weaponry to Blast Furry Pests From Burrows - from Tampa Bay Online FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Stalking the elusive pocket gopher and the brazen ground squirrel, farmer Mike Lagaluso is armed with the latest low-tech weaponry to blast the varmints from their underground lairs. In a scene being repeated in orchards and vineyards up and down the Central Valley, Lagaluso inserts an end of the Rodex 4000 into a hole in the ground, injects a combination of oxygen and propane, hits a switch and watches as the resulting explosion collapses a burrow several feet long. "This has just been a never-ending battle. Now, hopefully, within a year we can get the population down to a manageable level and reduce our labor costs for controlling these pests," said Lagaluso, who's using it on apple and peach orchards in San Luis Obispo County. Despite concerns about the product's effectiveness and safety - mostly voiced by university researchers - several farmers said they've had unparalleled success with the Rodex 4000. They like its portability - the oxygen and propane tanks can fit on the back of a small all-terrain vehicle - and its pyrotechnics, though the explosions are mostly concussive. To people who might think the Rodex 4000 is inhumane, its boosters say it's better than pesticides that can take longer to kill an animal. There's also minimal risk that farmers will blow up dogs, coyotes or birds, which all could be harmed by eating pests that have been poisoned. At about $1,400, the Rodex 4000 is a serious product that doesn't come in a big cartoon box stamped Acme on the side. And in an era of increasingly complex environmental regulations and mounting pressure from suburbanites to limit pesticide use near homes and schools, farmers are constantly on the lookout for alternative pest control methods, said Darren Schmall, who uses the product in his agricultural pest management business. "It sounds like just such a big boy's toy until you go out and see how the thing works," Schmall said. The Rodex 4000 doesn't blow gophers from their burrows or set them on fire. Its primary gas is oxygen, which is ignited by the propane and expands rapidly into 30 feet to 50 feet of tunnel. The critters inside are subjected to a massive concussive pressure that produces a deadly hemorrhage at the base of their brains. The gases also get into the creatures' lungs and when the oxygen expands, the lungs essentially explode, said Ed Meyer, vice president of sales for Midvale, Idaho-based Rodex Industries Inc. Still, researchers at the University of California and the Montana Department of Agriculture give the device mixed reviews. Montana officials found the device killed only about 30 percent to 40 percent of targeted ground squirrels and about 30 percent of the prairie dogs, said Monty Sullins, a vertebrate pest specialist. "They're very reproductive," Sullins said of the animals. "Unless you're getting 85 percent to 90 percent ... you're looking at repeat use. We just didn't have the numbers there to really recommend it as a major control tool." But farmers who are happy with it don't seem to mind going over the same ground a few times. Schmall said he gets a 95 percent kill ratio by making a second visit to the same place within a week. Farmers are eager to use anything that gives them an edge in the perennial battle against burrowing rodents, which destroy berms and irrigation systems and eat the roots of young plants. Desley Whisson, a vertebrate pests specialist with the University of California at Davis, studied a device similar to the Rodex several years ago. She worries about the fire risk when the Rodex 4000 is used in dry fields or orchards. Company officials concede the fire risk, but said if farmers use common sense and take precautions, wildfires won't be a problem. As for the risk to life and limb, Schmall said, "We've blasted easily 10,000 holes and I have yet to hand out even a Band-Aid to any of my guys." From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Fri Aug 10 10:28:20 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:28:20 -0400 Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR Message-ID: > ---------- > From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:bear at sonic.net] > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:06 PM > To: Dr. Evil > Cc: cypherpunks at minder.net > Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR > > > > On 10 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > > >blacked out. Cool! But I'm working on a different problem. > >Basically, I have a web site that lets you reserve domain names before > >you pay for them. I want to make sure that no loser out there decides > >to be cool and write a script which reserves every word in the > >dictionary, or every sequence of eight characters, or some moronic > >thing like that. So I will have the page display three characters, > >somewhat blurry, and say, "type these characters here!" If they don't > >match, you're not human! (Why didn't they think of this simple method > >in Terminator and Blade Runner?) This same moron could sit there and > >type domain names all day long, but that's enough punishment in > >itself. > I think text is the wrong approach. Put up some pictures, and a question - 'Click on the white bunny' 'Click on the chipmunk' 'Click on the Russian icon'. 'Click on the clowns nose' 'Click on the clown's right hand' Taking text, which is explicitly designed to be readable, and trying to find a degree of distortion which is human (but not machine) readable is probably a bad approach. Try something a 6 year old can do, but which is still a PhD thesis problem for computers. Peter From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Fri Aug 10 10:28:20 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:28:20 -0400 Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR Message-ID: > ---------- > From: Ray Dillinger[SMTP:bear at sonic.net] > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 12:06 PM > To: Dr. Evil > Cc: cypherpunks at minder.net > Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR > > > > On 10 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > > >blacked out. Cool! But I'm working on a different problem. > >Basically, I have a web site that lets you reserve domain names before > >you pay for them. I want to make sure that no loser out there decides > >to be cool and write a script which reserves every word in the > >dictionary, or every sequence of eight characters, or some moronic > >thing like that. So I will have the page display three characters, > >somewhat blurry, and say, "type these characters here!" If they don't > >match, you're not human! (Why didn't they think of this simple method > >in Terminator and Blade Runner?) This same moron could sit there and > >type domain names all day long, but that's enough punishment in > >itself. > I think text is the wrong approach. Put up some pictures, and a question - 'Click on the white bunny' 'Click on the chipmunk' 'Click on the Russian icon'. 'Click on the clowns nose' 'Click on the clown's right hand' Taking text, which is explicitly designed to be readable, and trying to find a degree of distortion which is human (but not machine) readable is probably a bad approach. Try something a 6 year old can do, but which is still a PhD thesis problem for computers. Peter From decoy at iki.fi Fri Aug 10 03:54:55 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:54:55 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft In-Reply-To: <20010809210232.AAA24148+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa . us> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote: >Someone's funding must be up for review, because the by now extremely old >Reedy case has magically appeared on all newspaper front pages this >morning with headlines like "Feds Bust Gigantic Child Porn Ring." Indeed. For added fun: this is pretty much the form of the headline I today saw on *my* local newspaper. That's pretty much across the globe, in a city of 100000, in a newspaper which pretty much monopolizes the market around these parts. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 05:02:36 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:02:36 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [Mojonation-users] delete files (fwd) Message-ID: Do not taunt the happy fun whatchacallit. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:22:04 -0700 From: Gregory P . Smith Reply-To: mojonation-users at lists.sourceforge.net To: mojonation-users at lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Mojonation-users] delete files On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:13:48PM +0200, Damian Pawliczek wrote: > Hallo, > i've published ab backup file encrypted with pgp. But I read afterwards that > it is saver to publish it without selecting a tracker and copying the > dinode. Is it possible to delete this published file?? > > MFG > D. Pawliczek Nope, deletion is not possible in the current content tracking system. however if you already encrypted data backup with pgp beforehand i wouldn't worry about it. _______________________________________________ Mojonation-users mailing list Mojonation-users at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mojonation-users From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 05:02:36 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:02:36 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [Mojonation-users] delete files (fwd) Message-ID: Do not taunt the happy fun whatchacallit. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:22:04 -0700 From: Gregory P . Smith To: mojonation-users at lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Mojonation-users] delete files On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:13:48PM +0200, Damian Pawliczek wrote: > Hallo, > i've published ab backup file encrypted with pgp. But I read afterwards that > it is saver to publish it without selecting a tracker and copying the > dinode. Is it possible to delete this published file?? > > MFG > D. Pawliczek Nope, deletion is not possible in the current content tracking system. however if you already encrypted data backup with pgp beforehand i wouldn't worry about it. _______________________________________________ Mojonation-users mailing list Mojonation-users at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mojonation-users From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 05:04:05 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:04:05 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: IP: Fwd: FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES (fromNewsScan Daily) (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 18:13:44 -0400 From: David Farber Reply-To: farber at cis.upenn.edu To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Fwd: FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES (from NewsScan Daily) Why does this worry me djf >From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" >To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" > >FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES >The Finnish government is considering using SIMs -- the subscriber >information modules inside every cell phone -- to take the place of its >national identity card, and eventually even a passport. Under the plan, the >computer chip embedded in every SIM would store personal information, >transforming the SIM into a person's legal proof of identity. Of course the >drawback would be what would happen if you lost your phone -- about 9,000 >cell phones are left on the London Underground alone every year. The >solution, according to Roger Needham, manager of Microsoft's British >research lab, is to store the information on secure servers accessible via >a WAP connection to the Web. The SIM in this case would store only a >personal identifier -- an encryption key -- that the owner would have to >punch in a PIN to use. The Finnish government is already taking the >initiative with a national technical standard called FINEID. Currently >FINEID uses a smart card and a card reader attached to a PC, but the plan >is to migrate to an SIM, says Vesa Vatka of the Finnish Population Register >Center in Helsinki. (New Scientist) >http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/tech/yourphoneisyou.jsp > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >geoff.goodfellow at iconia.com, Prague CZ * tel/mobil +420 (0)603 706 558 >"success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get" >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17drop.html For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 05:04:05 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:04:05 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: IP: Fwd: FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES (fromNewsScan Daily) (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 18:13:44 -0400 From: David Farber To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Fwd: FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES (from NewsScan Daily) Why does this worry me djf >From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" >To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" > >FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES >The Finnish government is considering using SIMs -- the subscriber >information modules inside every cell phone -- to take the place of its >national identity card, and eventually even a passport. Under the plan, the >computer chip embedded in every SIM would store personal information, >transforming the SIM into a person's legal proof of identity. Of course the >drawback would be what would happen if you lost your phone -- about 9,000 >cell phones are left on the London Underground alone every year. The >solution, according to Roger Needham, manager of Microsoft's British >research lab, is to store the information on secure servers accessible via >a WAP connection to the Web. The SIM in this case would store only a >personal identifier -- an encryption key -- that the owner would have to >punch in a PIN to use. The Finnish government is already taking the >initiative with a national technical standard called FINEID. Currently >FINEID uses a smart card and a card reader attached to a PC, but the plan >is to migrate to an SIM, says Vesa Vatka of the Finnish Population Register >Center in Helsinki. (New Scientist) >http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/tech/yourphoneisyou.jsp > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >geoff.goodfellow at iconia.com, Prague CZ * tel/mobil +420 (0)603 706 558 >"success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get" >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/01/biztech/articles/17drop.html For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ From remailer at remailer.xganon.com Fri Aug 10 12:19:35 2001 From: remailer at remailer.xganon.com (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:19:35 -0500 Subject: Why Joseph Asherwood Should Use Remailers Message-ID: Joseph Asherwood wrote: > I don't personally use remailers, I don't tend to do things that are > illegal, but if I did there are other methods that I'd use. You strike me as a fast learner, so I believe in a short time you will see that this is a silly statement. There's nothing wrong with learning, but this error is now linked to you forever. From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Fri Aug 10 14:23:52 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) Message-ID: <200108102123.f7ALNqw00190@artifact.psychedelic.net> Eugene Leitl writes: > A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less. The we won't tell the joke about the bus going over the cliff with one empty seat. :) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Philip Kingston > Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his > business was child porn, I've always regarded liability for content as a binary situation. Either one is or one isn't. The reading and viewing preferences of ones customers are hardly something under ones control. Does a library acquire liability when 40% of its customers look at the most controversial books? Does an ISP suddenly become liable for the contents of its news spool, if 40% of its customers should decide to investigate the naked children newsgroups? I think putting people in jail for knowing about content they have no control over is a very bad idea. Most adult sites located in more lax jurisdictions carry a variety of material, only some of which is in violation of US laws. Since not one of the Reedys' customers was charged with downloading any specific illegal image at the two foreign sites, and the 100 arrests were produced by an entirely separate entrapment scheme targeting the Reedys' customer base, it seems unlikely that evidence linking specific customers to specific images exists. At most we can say that the two sites containing some illegal (in the US) material reached an embarrassingly high level of popularity, and were visited by numerous people, some of whom may have looked at stuff the US Government forbids. Or may not have, for that matter. > he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn," Of course, this is one BIG problem with child porn laws. No one can look at the site to see if what is being said about it is the truth. The claim that the Landslide Web site had a clickable link with the actual text "Click here for child porn" was made by an investigator who looked at the site, and was widely repeated in the press. I have been unable to independently coroborate this, and quite frankly, it's real hard to believe, especially since the site was supposedly operating according to well-clued legal advice. Anyone who could put up a mirror of the site stripped of potentially illegal images and artwork would be doing everyone who wants to verify amazing allegations like this a big favor. I'll go on record as being skeptical "Click here for child porn" was prominently displayed. > and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of > child porn. Again, that Mr. Ready may have downloaded images that were illegal in the US is not a crime meriting life in prison, and orthogonal to the entire age verification/liability for content question. > I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing > access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be > the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line. I would argue that if one does not have liability for content, whether one is aware the content is illegal is immaterial. > However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child > porn. It's about whether the government should be able to jail people child pornographers purchase goods and services from, when they are unable to get their hands on the child pornographers, who aren't breaking any major laws in their own jurisdiction. It's also about the Feebs getting their hands on the Reedys' not insignificant assets. Could Kodak executives be "child pornographers" if 40% of the images taken with some inexpensive digital camera they manufacture were demonstrated to be of tumescent child genitalia? Would this change if they were aware of this use? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Fri Aug 10 14:30:42 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) Message-ID: <200108102130.f7ALUgL00227@artifact.psychedelic.net> Eugene Leitl writes: > A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less. The we won't tell the joke about the bus going over the cliff with one empty seat. :) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Philip Kingston > Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his > business was child porn, I've always regarded liability for content as a binary situation. Either one is or one isn't. The reading and viewing preferences of ones customers are hardly something under ones control. Does a library acquire liability when 40% of its customers look at the most controversial books? Does an ISP suddenly become liable for the contents of its news spool, if 40% of its customers should decide to investigate the naked children newsgroups? I think putting people in jail for knowing about content they have no control over is a very bad idea. Most adult sites located in more lax jurisdictions carry a variety of material, only some of which is in violation of US laws. Since not one of the Reedys' customers was charged with downloading any specific illegal image at the two foreign sites, and the 100 arrests were produced by an entirely separate entrapment scheme targeting the Reedys' customer base, it seems unlikely that evidence linking specific customers to specific images exists. At most we can say that the two sites containing some illegal (in the US) material reached an embarrassingly high level of popularity, and were visited by numerous people, some of whom may have looked at stuff the US Government forbids. Or may not have, for that matter. > he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn," Of course, this is one BIG problem with child porn laws. No one can look at the site to see if what is being said about it is the truth. The claim that the Landslide Web site had a clickable link with the actual text "Click here for child porn" was made by an investigator who looked at the site, and was widely repeated in the press. I have been unable to independently coroborate this, and quite frankly, it's real hard to believe, especially since the site was supposedly operating according to well-clued legal advice. Anyone who could put up a mirror of the site stripped of potentially illegal images and artwork would be doing everyone who wants to verify amazing allegations like this a big favor. I'll go on record as being skeptical "Click here for child porn" was prominently displayed. > and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of > child porn. Again, that Mr. Ready may have downloaded images that were illegal in the US is not a crime meriting life in prison, and orthogonal to the entire age verification/liability for content question. > I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing > access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be > the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line. I would argue that if one does not have liability for content, whether one is aware the content is illegal is immaterial. > However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child > porn. It's about whether the government should be able to jail people child pornographers purchase goods and services from, when they are unable to get their hands on the child pornographers, who aren't breaking any major laws in their own jurisdiction. It's also about the Feebs getting their hands on the Reedys' not insignificant assets. Could Kodak executives be "child pornographers" if 40% of the images taken with some inexpensive digital camera they manufacture were demonstrated to be of tumescent child genitalia? Would this change if they were aware of this use? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 05:48:54 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:48:54 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) Message-ID: A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:37:59 -0500 From: Philip Kingston Reply-To: pigdog-l at bearfountain.com To: "'pigdog-l at bearfountain.com'" Subject: RE: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) ]]]]]]"The Reedys marketed adult-porn sites and kiddie-porn sites. They charged more for the kiddie porn," Paul Coggins, who was U.S. attorney at the time, said Wednesday. [The Feebs are allowed to spin the Reedys' customer service email. Who knows what the actual messages said, or how many of them there were.][[[[[[ Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his business was child porn, he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn," and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of child porn. I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line. However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child porn. Philip T. Kingston Yea Ft. Worth! It's right by Dallas! -----Original Message----- From: Eugene Leitl [mailto:Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:47 AM To: grisvalpen Subject: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:02:32 -0700 From: Eric Cordian To: cypherpunks at lne.com Subject: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft Someone's funding must be up for review, because the by now extremely old Reedy case has magically appeared on all newspaper front pages this morning with headlines like "Feds Bust Gigantic Child Porn Ring." Odd, since we've been discussing the case since April 15th, 2000, around the time the Feebs raided and shut down the Reedys' servers. To recap, Thomas and Janice Reedy ran a popular age verification service, which offered the AVS and KeyZ codes to 250,000 subscribers who could then access over 5,000 adult sites. Typically, an age verification service will keep some of this money, and give another part of it to the sites that you visit. Anyone could sign up to be a webmaster under the program, and the Reedys were assured by their lawyers that they were not responsible for content. The service prospered, and the Reedys lived very comfortably. Well, apparently an enormous TWO of the adult sites in question, located in the non-internet-porn regulating jurisdictions of Russia and Indonesia, offered material featuring people under the age of 18, which was illegal in the United States, and the bowels of the governmental child-protectors were soon in a gigantic uproar. Now the Feebs are very careful never to prosecute a child porn case they are not absolutely sure of winning, because they want to push the envelope in their desired direction, and not end up with precedents and case law where their doctrine is reversed. Holding an age verification service accountable for two of over 5,000 sites located in a foreign jurisdiction had never been done before. Still, this is America where all the papers will print whatever outrageous bullshit the government says about child porn, without questioning it. So lead prosecutor Terri Moore, a woman in love with the Sex Abuse Agenda, who can rattle off adjectives like "chilling", "frightening", and "feeding the hunger of pedophiles," at breathtaking speed, decided to prosecute the case. Armed with a 87 count indictment from a secret grand jury (the favorite rubber stamp of prosecutors), and comments from other Sex Abuse Agenda proponents like Parry Aftab, who compared the age verification service to the World Trade Center bombing, Ms. Moore put her assault vagina in gear, and headed to the courtroom. Lost in the shuffle were the 250,000 holders of the AVS and KeyZ codes, who found them worthless after the Reedys' servers were seized, and were damn pissed they had been collectively cheated out of millions of dollars. The over 5,000 Adult Webmasters offering perfectly legal porn were also less than amused. The trial was a circus of metaphors, with the Reedys being compared to the madam of a whorehouse prostituting helpless little children. In the end, the jury bought the performance, and returned a guilty verdict. The Feebs had pushed the envelope even further, and age verification services were now responsible for the content of all Web sites that used their codes. Thomas Reedy got life, even though he had never produced a single piece of child porn. His wife got a lesser sentence. But the Feebs were not done yet. They had conducted a sting operation, over a period of two years, trying to induce people to purchase child porn videos, CD-ROMs, and magazines, and had incorporated the Reedys' list of 250,000 age verification service subscribers into the hunt. In the end, when they went public, they had gotten an astounding 144 search warrants, and made an absolutely unbelievable 100 arrests. Bear in mind the Feebs had never brought charges against anyone for having visited one of the two alleged child porn sites. All the arrests were people the Feebs had independently trolled to buy material offered by the government, completely apart from the Reedys' operation. But that was only the beginning of the lying. The government propaganda machine spun into full gear, and newspapers began to write stories which by the usual mixture of juxtiposition, innuendo, omission, and just plan untruths, told the public the following. That the age verification service was "the largest commercial child porn operation in the history of the United States." That the age verification service was itself the "child porn operation" and that the Reedys were "child pornographers." That the 250,000 subscribers to the age verification service were child porn purchasers. That the 100 people entrapped by the Feebs had purchased child porn from the Reedys' operation. That all the revenues of the age verification service were from child porn. That the government had just "shut down a gigantic child porn ring and arrested its users." In reality, the Reedy case was by then old news, and the arrests of people the Feebs had entrapped had happened slowly over the prior two years. The press, which had originally told some the truth about the case, now simply began reprinting Ashcroft's press releases... Here's one such story... I will correct the more blatant lies in []. ----- Texas Couple Convicted in Porn Case [suggestion that all of this is breaking news] By DAVID KOENIG Associated Press Writer August 9, 2001 DALLAS -- Thomas and Janice Reedy lived in an upscale Fort Worth neighborhood where neighbors say they threw all-night pool parties and where luxury cars would pull into their half-moon driveway at all hours of the night. They told neighbors they were in the computer business, which was partly true: They sold access to child pornography on Internet sites with names like "Cyber Lolita" and "Child Rape." [They sold age verification codes, anyone could sign up as a webmaster, and they did not police content. Only two of over 5,000 adult sites that used their service contained material illegal in the United States.] Authorities say it was an international operation with 250,000 subscribers that grossed as much as $1.4 million a month. [All the age verification subscribers, and the total revenues of the business, now magically become the numbers for the "child porn ring.] This week, the Reedys were sentenced to prison for conspiracy to distribute and possess child pornography [Conspiracy is the usual way the Feebs proceed when they don't have an actual case based on evidence you committed the crime in question.] On Wednesday, authorities announced the arrests of 100 of the couple's subscribers in what they called the largest child-pornography business discovered in the United States. [The 100 people were independently trolled by the Feebs to buy Feeb-produced child porn. This had nothing to do with the Reedys' operation, or the two foreign websites, apart from the Feebs stealing the Reedys' customer list.] "This is the worst kind of exploitation," said Ruben Rodriguez, a director at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "To think of the image of child pornography _ a child is being molested, raped, abused. You're allowing people to pay to look at this victimization of a child." [And now a word from NCMEC, a pseudo-governmental organization, founded by the Department of Justice, and run by Ernie Allen, a close ideological associate of both Ed Meese and convicted criminal and child abuser Mike Echols.] The Reedys' attorneys call them victims of an overzealous government. [The attorney better watch out. The Feebs will get him next.] Susie Boese, who lives next door to the Reedys' former Fort Worth home, said Mrs. Reedy's young daughter spent a lot of time with her children. [A not-so-subtle attempt to suggest that the children of neighbors were in some sort of danger by being in the same community with the evil Satanic age verification server.] When the investigation heated up, the Reedys left Fort Worth for a small home in nearby Lake Worth. They were arrested in April 2000. In court, Mrs. Reedy, 32, testified that she met Thomas Reedy, 37, in South Texas and moved to Fort Worth in 1997 with her daughter, who was then 6. [Oh look, a paragraph of truth tossed in to confuse us.] He was already working on a start-up Internet company, Landslide Inc. Mrs. Reedy was trained to keep the company's books. She testified that she saw offensive-sounding names of Web sites, but a woman training her in 1997 told her to ignore them. "She said, 'Don't worry. They're just names. They don't mean anything,"' she testified. [Since Mrs. Reedy is a woman, she of course is a "victim" too] For more than two years, Mrs. Reedy charged users a fee to view sexually explicit sites, kept 40 percent of the money and sent 60 percent to Webmasters in Indonesia and Russia. She said she learned the sites contained child pornography when a former employee tipped her off in 1999. [By now, the reader will believe that "sexually explicit sites" refers only to the "child porn operation." And that the two webmasters in Russia and Indonesia, out of over 5,000, constituted the Reedys' only business associates.] "I went to my husband, and he said he had contacted the FBI and it was all being handled," Mrs. Reedy said. Less than a month later, police raided the business. [Some people are actually dumb enough to think that if they contact the FBI about child porn, they won't make themselves targets.] Thomas Reedy didn't testify during the five-day trial in federal court in Fort Worth. His wife was the last defense witness. The couple argues they were merely collecting money for other businesses. [A fact, namely that they only ran an age verification service, is impuned in the mind of the reader by not being simply stated, but labeled as something "argued" by the now-convicted "criminals." Attorney Steven Rozan, who is preparing their appeal, said the Reedys are victims -- Reedy was sentenced to life in prison and his wife received 14 years. "To lose 10 years of a person's life in prison is a helluva lot for a crime that doesn't involve death, doesn't involve maiming, but is basically a cybercrime," Rozan said. "These people were basically ticket takers." Investigators didn't believe Mrs. Reedy's claim to be ignorant of the child pornography. [It doesn't matter if the Reedys knew there was child porn on a few websites, if they were not responsible for content. Most ISPs know there is child porn on their news servers. That doesn't make them a child porn ring. Charging for access doesn't make them the madams of a child porn bordello.] Ron Eddins, who helped prosecute the case, said Mrs. Reedy exchanged e-mail messages with foreign Webmasters about irate customers who complained they weren't getting all they paid for. "The Reedys marketed adult-porn sites and kiddie-porn sites. They charged more for the kiddie porn," Paul Coggins, who was U.S. attorney at the time, said Wednesday. [The Feebs are allowed to spin the Reedys' customer service email. Who knows what the actual messages said, or how many of them there were.] After raiding the Reedys' business, undercover agents took over the Landslide Web site and contacted its users. When subscribers ordered child pornography delivered to their homes, agents moved in. Investigators focused on the most egregious U.S. offenders, authorities said. [Again, the suggestion that all 250,000 customers of the age verification service were child porn purchasers, and that the Feebs, rather than simply stealing a customer list for an independent entrapment effort, somehow "took over" an existing child porn operation.] Among those arrested: a computer consultant from North Carolina accused of producing videos depicting abuse of young girls, including a 4-year-old; and a West Virginia man who worked at a psychiatric hospital for sexually abused children. [Lying by juxtiposition. None of this individual's cited activities had anything to do with the Reedys' business. The Feebs are simply looking for subscribers with outrageous unrelated criminal records, to make the story sound more sleezy.] Most of the Reedys' Lake Worth neighbors said they didn't learn of the couple's activities until they saw Attorney General John Ashcroft talking about the case on television Wednesday. "It kind of puts an eerie feeling in you when you know it's that close to you," said neighbor Kenneth Franklin, whose young granddaughters are often at his home. "We were totally unaware." [And what smear would be complete without the finishing touch of interviewing the smearee's neighbors so they can be quoted saying how "shocked" they are.] -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 05:48:54 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:48:54 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) Message-ID: A somewhat dissenting opinion, and from a lawyer, no less. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 07:37:59 -0500 From: Philip Kingston To: "'pigdog-l at bearfountain.com'" Subject: RE: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) ]]]]]]"The Reedys marketed adult-porn sites and kiddie-porn sites. They charged more for the kiddie porn," Paul Coggins, who was U.S. attorney at the time, said Wednesday. [The Feebs are allowed to spin the Reedys' customer service email. Who knows what the actual messages said, or how many of them there were.][[[[[[ Uhh...Mr. Reedy admitted in interrogation that he knew that 40% of his business was child porn, he had a link on HIS site that said "Click here for child porn," and two counts he was convicted on were for his personal library of child porn. I can see a continuum of behavior that runs between innocently providing access to illegal material and active child exploitation, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know where to draw the line. However, this case doesn't get near that line; it's just about child porn. Philip T. Kingston Yea Ft. Worth! It's right by Dallas! -----Original Message----- From: Eugene Leitl [mailto:Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:47 AM To: grisvalpen Subject: [Pigdog] Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft (fwd) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:02:32 -0700 From: Eric Cordian To: cypherpunks at lne.com Subject: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft Someone's funding must be up for review, because the by now extremely old Reedy case has magically appeared on all newspaper front pages this morning with headlines like "Feds Bust Gigantic Child Porn Ring." Odd, since we've been discussing the case since April 15th, 2000, around the time the Feebs raided and shut down the Reedys' servers. To recap, Thomas and Janice Reedy ran a popular age verification service, which offered the AVS and KeyZ codes to 250,000 subscribers who could then access over 5,000 adult sites. Typically, an age verification service will keep some of this money, and give another part of it to the sites that you visit. Anyone could sign up to be a webmaster under the program, and the Reedys were assured by their lawyers that they were not responsible for content. The service prospered, and the Reedys lived very comfortably. Well, apparently an enormous TWO of the adult sites in question, located in the non-internet-porn regulating jurisdictions of Russia and Indonesia, offered material featuring people under the age of 18, which was illegal in the United States, and the bowels of the governmental child-protectors were soon in a gigantic uproar. Now the Feebs are very careful never to prosecute a child porn case they are not absolutely sure of winning, because they want to push the envelope in their desired direction, and not end up with precedents and case law where their doctrine is reversed. Holding an age verification service accountable for two of over 5,000 sites located in a foreign jurisdiction had never been done before. Still, this is America where all the papers will print whatever outrageous bullshit the government says about child porn, without questioning it. So lead prosecutor Terri Moore, a woman in love with the Sex Abuse Agenda, who can rattle off adjectives like "chilling", "frightening", and "feeding the hunger of pedophiles," at breathtaking speed, decided to prosecute the case. Armed with a 87 count indictment from a secret grand jury (the favorite rubber stamp of prosecutors), and comments from other Sex Abuse Agenda proponents like Parry Aftab, who compared the age verification service to the World Trade Center bombing, Ms. Moore put her assault vagina in gear, and headed to the courtroom. Lost in the shuffle were the 250,000 holders of the AVS and KeyZ codes, who found them worthless after the Reedys' servers were seized, and were damn pissed they had been collectively cheated out of millions of dollars. The over 5,000 Adult Webmasters offering perfectly legal porn were also less than amused. The trial was a circus of metaphors, with the Reedys being compared to the madam of a whorehouse prostituting helpless little children. In the end, the jury bought the performance, and returned a guilty verdict. The Feebs had pushed the envelope even further, and age verification services were now responsible for the content of all Web sites that used their codes. Thomas Reedy got life, even though he had never produced a single piece of child porn. His wife got a lesser sentence. But the Feebs were not done yet. They had conducted a sting operation, over a period of two years, trying to induce people to purchase child porn videos, CD-ROMs, and magazines, and had incorporated the Reedys' list of 250,000 age verification service subscribers into the hunt. In the end, when they went public, they had gotten an astounding 144 search warrants, and made an absolutely unbelievable 100 arrests. Bear in mind the Feebs had never brought charges against anyone for having visited one of the two alleged child porn sites. All the arrests were people the Feebs had independently trolled to buy material offered by the government, completely apart from the Reedys' operation. But that was only the beginning of the lying. The government propaganda machine spun into full gear, and newspapers began to write stories which by the usual mixture of juxtiposition, innuendo, omission, and just plan untruths, told the public the following. That the age verification service was "the largest commercial child porn operation in the history of the United States." That the age verification service was itself the "child porn operation" and that the Reedys were "child pornographers." That the 250,000 subscribers to the age verification service were child porn purchasers. That the 100 people entrapped by the Feebs had purchased child porn from the Reedys' operation. That all the revenues of the age verification service were from child porn. That the government had just "shut down a gigantic child porn ring and arrested its users." In reality, the Reedy case was by then old news, and the arrests of people the Feebs had entrapped had happened slowly over the prior two years. The press, which had originally told some the truth about the case, now simply began reprinting Ashcroft's press releases... Here's one such story... I will correct the more blatant lies in []. ----- Texas Couple Convicted in Porn Case [suggestion that all of this is breaking news] By DAVID KOENIG Associated Press Writer August 9, 2001 DALLAS -- Thomas and Janice Reedy lived in an upscale Fort Worth neighborhood where neighbors say they threw all-night pool parties and where luxury cars would pull into their half-moon driveway at all hours of the night. They told neighbors they were in the computer business, which was partly true: They sold access to child pornography on Internet sites with names like "Cyber Lolita" and "Child Rape." [They sold age verification codes, anyone could sign up as a webmaster, and they did not police content. Only two of over 5,000 adult sites that used their service contained material illegal in the United States.] Authorities say it was an international operation with 250,000 subscribers that grossed as much as $1.4 million a month. [All the age verification subscribers, and the total revenues of the business, now magically become the numbers for the "child porn ring.] This week, the Reedys were sentenced to prison for conspiracy to distribute and possess child pornography [Conspiracy is the usual way the Feebs proceed when they don't have an actual case based on evidence you committed the crime in question.] On Wednesday, authorities announced the arrests of 100 of the couple's subscribers in what they called the largest child-pornography business discovered in the United States. [The 100 people were independently trolled by the Feebs to buy Feeb-produced child porn. This had nothing to do with the Reedys' operation, or the two foreign websites, apart from the Feebs stealing the Reedys' customer list.] "This is the worst kind of exploitation," said Ruben Rodriguez, a director at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "To think of the image of child pornography _ a child is being molested, raped, abused. You're allowing people to pay to look at this victimization of a child." [And now a word from NCMEC, a pseudo-governmental organization, founded by the Department of Justice, and run by Ernie Allen, a close ideological associate of both Ed Meese and convicted criminal and child abuser Mike Echols.] The Reedys' attorneys call them victims of an overzealous government. [The attorney better watch out. The Feebs will get him next.] Susie Boese, who lives next door to the Reedys' former Fort Worth home, said Mrs. Reedy's young daughter spent a lot of time with her children. [A not-so-subtle attempt to suggest that the children of neighbors were in some sort of danger by being in the same community with the evil Satanic age verification server.] When the investigation heated up, the Reedys left Fort Worth for a small home in nearby Lake Worth. They were arrested in April 2000. In court, Mrs. Reedy, 32, testified that she met Thomas Reedy, 37, in South Texas and moved to Fort Worth in 1997 with her daughter, who was then 6. [Oh look, a paragraph of truth tossed in to confuse us.] He was already working on a start-up Internet company, Landslide Inc. Mrs. Reedy was trained to keep the company's books. She testified that she saw offensive-sounding names of Web sites, but a woman training her in 1997 told her to ignore them. "She said, 'Don't worry. They're just names. They don't mean anything,"' she testified. [Since Mrs. Reedy is a woman, she of course is a "victim" too] For more than two years, Mrs. Reedy charged users a fee to view sexually explicit sites, kept 40 percent of the money and sent 60 percent to Webmasters in Indonesia and Russia. She said she learned the sites contained child pornography when a former employee tipped her off in 1999. [By now, the reader will believe that "sexually explicit sites" refers only to the "child porn operation." And that the two webmasters in Russia and Indonesia, out of over 5,000, constituted the Reedys' only business associates.] "I went to my husband, and he said he had contacted the FBI and it was all being handled," Mrs. Reedy said. Less than a month later, police raided the business. [Some people are actually dumb enough to think that if they contact the FBI about child porn, they won't make themselves targets.] Thomas Reedy didn't testify during the five-day trial in federal court in Fort Worth. His wife was the last defense witness. The couple argues they were merely collecting money for other businesses. [A fact, namely that they only ran an age verification service, is impuned in the mind of the reader by not being simply stated, but labeled as something "argued" by the now-convicted "criminals." Attorney Steven Rozan, who is preparing their appeal, said the Reedys are victims -- Reedy was sentenced to life in prison and his wife received 14 years. "To lose 10 years of a person's life in prison is a helluva lot for a crime that doesn't involve death, doesn't involve maiming, but is basically a cybercrime," Rozan said. "These people were basically ticket takers." Investigators didn't believe Mrs. Reedy's claim to be ignorant of the child pornography. [It doesn't matter if the Reedys knew there was child porn on a few websites, if they were not responsible for content. Most ISPs know there is child porn on their news servers. That doesn't make them a child porn ring. Charging for access doesn't make them the madams of a child porn bordello.] Ron Eddins, who helped prosecute the case, said Mrs. Reedy exchanged e-mail messages with foreign Webmasters about irate customers who complained they weren't getting all they paid for. "The Reedys marketed adult-porn sites and kiddie-porn sites. They charged more for the kiddie porn," Paul Coggins, who was U.S. attorney at the time, said Wednesday. [The Feebs are allowed to spin the Reedys' customer service email. Who knows what the actual messages said, or how many of them there were.] After raiding the Reedys' business, undercover agents took over the Landslide Web site and contacted its users. When subscribers ordered child pornography delivered to their homes, agents moved in. Investigators focused on the most egregious U.S. offenders, authorities said. [Again, the suggestion that all 250,000 customers of the age verification service were child porn purchasers, and that the Feebs, rather than simply stealing a customer list for an independent entrapment effort, somehow "took over" an existing child porn operation.] Among those arrested: a computer consultant from North Carolina accused of producing videos depicting abuse of young girls, including a 4-year-old; and a West Virginia man who worked at a psychiatric hospital for sexually abused children. [Lying by juxtiposition. None of this individual's cited activities had anything to do with the Reedys' business. The Feebs are simply looking for subscribers with outrageous unrelated criminal records, to make the story sound more sleezy.] Most of the Reedys' Lake Worth neighbors said they didn't learn of the couple's activities until they saw Attorney General John Ashcroft talking about the case on television Wednesday. "It kind of puts an eerie feeling in you when you know it's that close to you," said neighbor Kenneth Franklin, whose young granddaughters are often at his home. "We were totally unaware." [And what smear would be complete without the finishing touch of interviewing the smearee's neighbors so they can be quoted saying how "shocked" they are.] -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From meetingpunks-request at majordomo.cryptorights.org Fri Aug 10 14:58:55 2001 From: meetingpunks-request at majordomo.cryptorights.org (meetingpunks-request at majordomo.cryptorights.org) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:58:55 -0700 Subject: Confirmation for subscribe meetingpunks Message-ID: <200108102158.f7ALwt005273@rocko.intermag.com> -- Someone (possibly you) has requested that your email address be added to or deleted from the mailing list "meetingpunks at majordomo.cryptorights.org". If you really want this action to be taken, please send the following commands (exactly as shown) back to "meetingpunks-request at majordomo.cryptorights.org": auth edf4b3da subscribe meetingpunks cypherpunks at minder.net If you do not want this action to be taken, simply ignore this message and the request will be disregarded. If your mailer will not allow you to send the entire command as a single line, you may split it using backslashes, like so: auth edf4b3da subscribe meetingpunks \ cypherpunks at minder.net If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please contact "meetingpunks-owner at majordomo.cryptorights.org". Thanks! meetingpunks-request at majordomo.cryptorights.org From ashwood at msn.com Fri Aug 10 13:26:32 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:26:32 -0500 Subject: Why Joseph Asherwood Should Use Remailers References: Message-ID: <00d901c121da$d55fd860$d3c2b6c7@josephas> Yet another failure on the part of the reader. Anonymity is strictly to avoid having something linked to your identity. Since what I do requires trust, and trust cannot be built into an anonymous system. I can't do what I want to do through anonymity. Additionally you have apparently failed to grasp exactly where the reality and perceived reality of anonymous remailers actually lies. What you have taken to calling anonymity is far from it. Not only does it have a threshold of workeffort that can be applied to trace a message, but it also comes from a finite set of users, a potentially very small finite set of users. For example, how many people make use of remailer.xganon.com? Certainly no more than a few thousand. A few thousand investigations would turn of any facts surrounding statements made through the "anonymous" remailer. To narrow the possibilities even further, how many of them read cypherpunks through lne.com? Whether you have realized it or not, your anonymity is heavily flawed. So what point is there to using "anonymity" that is heavily flawed, slow, drops messages, and through not being pseudonymous does not allow the building of trust? The only remaining reason would be doing something illegal where the flaws become benefits, slowness is immaterial, dropped messages don't matter, and you don't want trust. If you can give me an example of another use of a generally horrible technology that is legal I will gladly point out to you why there are still better technologies for that as well. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anonymous" To: Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 2:19 PM Subject: CDR: Why Joseph Asherwood Should Use Remailers > Joseph Asherwood wrote: > > I don't personally use remailers, I don't tend to do things that are > > illegal, but if I did there are other methods that I'd use. > > You strike me as a fast learner, so I believe in a short time you will > see that this is a silly statement. There's nothing wrong with > learning, but this error is now linked to you forever. > > From secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net Fri Aug 10 08:42:01 2001 From: secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net (Secret Squirrel) Date: 10 Aug 2001 15:42:01 -0000 Subject: BOMB PLANS Message-ID: <20010810154201.14801.qmail@nym.alias.net> Why not nitroglycerin? The components are very easy to get -- nitric acid and glycerine. Leitl spake: >On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >> What I've done in a couple of these "Send me bombz info" trolls is to >> use a remailer chain to send the AOL cop trollers some truly >> interesting stuff about Astrolite and how to make it. All available >> from online places (well, CNN yanked the Astrolite material after >> explosives experts whined that CNN had detailed info on ANFO). > >Anhydrous hydrazine is toxic (and carcinogenic), and difficult to get. If >you want to assist evolution, point people towards something which can be >easily bought, made, and something so sensitive no sensible person would >use. From salerno at tapnet.net Fri Aug 10 14:49:22 2001 From: salerno at tapnet.net (Salerno Duane of Sussex, Inc.) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:49:22 -0500 Subject: Looking for a GREAT deal? Message-ID: 2001 GMC YUKON SLE 4.8L V8 engine, automatic transmission, split bench seat, power drivers seat, floor mats, rear window wiper, rear heater, fog lights, power windows, door locks, heated mirrors, alloy wheels, 3.73 rear axle ratio, rear cargo panel doors. 10 miles VIN 1J3087825 stock # 319539 M.S.R.P. $32980.00 Only $26576.00! Or lease for only $ 330.00 ! Now through 8/11/01 At Salerno Duane Auto Plaza 20 RT 206 Newton, NJ 07860 1-800-AUTOPLAZA 1-973-579-5000 www.salernoduaneautoplaza.com Prices and payments include all rebates and incentives, but do not includes sales Tax, mv, doc fees. Lease payments is for 36 months, 12,000 miles/year, and Requires only $3000.00 out of pocket at lease signing to qualified consumers. If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please reply with "remove me" in the subject field. hakc From surplusbuyer at usedcartridge.com Fri Aug 10 16:53:01 2001 From: surplusbuyer at usedcartridge.com (surplusbuyer) Date: 10 Aug 2001 16:53:01 -0700 Subject: Cash your Surplus Toners, Used or Empty Cartridges and Media Tapes Message-ID: Always Buying We buy surplus toner, cartridges... We buy used cartridges.... We buy surplus magnetic media, data tapes and cartridges... http://www.usedcartridge.com http://www.surplustoner.com http://www.surplusmagmedia.com If you want to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please go to http://www.usedcartridge.com/remove.html From tonercity at wheelweb.com Fri Aug 10 17:06:56 2001 From: tonercity at wheelweb.com (TonerCity USA) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:06:56 Subject: Summer Time Message-ID: <200108102212.f7AMC2H18367@ak47.algebra.com> Summer Sale... Buy any type of toner at wholesale prices. If you own or lease any brand of copier, fax or printer you can get preferred pricing on all our toner products. Just call, email or fax us a list of the items you need and we'll return a quote immediately. We send out all orders the same day and shipping is FREE. TonerCity USA Toll Free: 1-866-FastToner (327-8866) Fax Number: 972-680-9548 Email Address: tonercity at wheelweb.com This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301, Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S, 1618. To unsubscribe simply reply with "remove" in the subject line. From tonercity at wheelweb.com Fri Aug 10 17:06:56 2001 From: tonercity at wheelweb.com (TonerCity USA) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:06:56 Subject: Summer Time Message-ID: <200108102212.f7AMC0513946@rigel.cyberpass.net> Summer Sale... Buy any type of toner at wholesale prices. If you own or lease any brand of copier, fax or printer you can get preferred pricing on all our toner products. Just call, email or fax us a list of the items you need and we'll return a quote immediately. We send out all orders the same day and shipping is FREE. TonerCity USA Toll Free: 1-866-FastToner (327-8866) Fax Number: 972-680-9548 Email Address: tonercity at wheelweb.com This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301, Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S, 1618. To unsubscribe simply reply with "remove" in the subject line. From tonercity at wheelweb.com Fri Aug 10 17:06:56 2001 From: tonercity at wheelweb.com (TonerCity USA) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:06:56 Subject: Summer Time Message-ID: <200108102212.f7AMC2H18368@ak47.algebra.com> Summer Sale... Buy any type of toner at wholesale prices. If you own or lease any brand of copier, fax or printer you can get preferred pricing on all our toner products. Just call, email or fax us a list of the items you need and we'll return a quote immediately. We send out all orders the same day and shipping is FREE. TonerCity USA Toll Free: 1-866-FastToner (327-8866) Fax Number: 972-680-9548 Email Address: tonercity at wheelweb.com This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301, Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S, 1618. To unsubscribe simply reply with "remove" in the subject line. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 08:24:22 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:24:22 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <200108101430.f7AEUXY17230@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > But you don't believe these Bombz d00dz are actually seeking to make > bombs, do you? It seems clear from the consistent language and the No idea. It could be cops, it could be real 24ct genuine teenage idiots posing as such, it's hard to tell the difference. > attempts to look like gangsta niggaz that these are _cops_ attempting > to entice people into sending them bomb-making instructions. Well, even if I sent them instructions, I would be outside their jurisdiction. If our esteemed Otto Schily (a former Green turned socialist red, blackening visibly as we speak) can't get at Murrkan white supremacists (Zundel et al.), how difficult is the inverse? > Sending them actual documents on Astrolite, with more details than > "mix fuel oil and fertilizer," may actually send them into a feeding > frenzy. This is the idea, right? IANAL, can this be used as a pretense to shut the list down? > And if they are real gangsta niggaz, or real Neo-Nazis, maybe they'll > blow something up. I've noticed even smart novices can't follow a recipe. It's hard to imagine they'd manage to blow up themselves or somebody else without a lot of handholding. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 09:06:33 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:06:33 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <20010810154201.14801.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: On 10 Aug 2001, Secret Squirrel wrote: > Why not nitroglycerin? The components are very easy to get -- nitric > acid and glycerine. Easy to get? Haven't seen concentrated acids being sold at Walmart so far. Even if, nitrating polyols is nontrivial, especially in large batches, by novices. You'd rather defoliate your garden before. Hey, is ammonium nitrate fertilizer a watched substance yet? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From VirusWarnings at elknet.net Fri Aug 10 16:21:40 2001 From: VirusWarnings at elknet.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Anti-Viral_Plugin?=) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:21:40 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Virus_Alert?= Message-ID: Message from "Knutsons" (return path: knutsons at elknet.net) and sent to cypherpunks at ssz.com was NOT DELIVERED because at least one virus was found within an attachment to it. Details Follow: -----------------> Virus scanning report - 10. August 2001 18:21 F-PROT 3.09a SIGN.DEF created 19. July 2001 SIGN2.DEF created 18. July 2001 MACRO.DEF created 15. July 2001 Search: d:\inetmail\mfilter\TEMP\*.* Action: Report only Files: "Dumb" scan of all files Switches: /ARCHIVE /PACKED /REPORT=d:\inetmail\mfilter\infected.txt /NOBOOT /NOMEM Memory was not scanned. Hard disk boot sectors were not scanned. D:\INETMAIL\MFILTER\TEMP\AVP21A4.TMP Infection: W95/Sircam.worm at mm Results of virus scanning: Files: 1 MBRs: 0 Boot sectors: 0 Objects scanned: 1 Infected: 1 Suspicious: 0 Disinfected: 0 Deleted: 0 Renamed: 0 Time: 0:00 -----------------> Original Headers & Text: -----------------> Received: from oemcomputer (unverified [204.95.183.104]) by mail.elknet.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:21:31 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Knutsons" To: cypherpunks at ssz.com Subject: Jonathan Knutson date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:15:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----099C8A0A_Outlook_Express_message_boundary" Content-Disposition: Multipart message ------099C8A0A_Outlook_Express_message_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: message text Hi! How are you=3F I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later=2E Thanks ------099C8A0A_Outlook_Express_message_boundary ** message truncated ** -----------------> Anti-Viral Plugin for EMWAC Internet Mail Server (IMS): http://www.zaxalon.com/avp.html?ref=AVPmessage From VirusWarnings at elknet.net Fri Aug 10 16:25:35 2001 From: VirusWarnings at elknet.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Anti-Viral_Plugin?=) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:25:35 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Virus_Alert?= Message-ID: Message from "Knutsons" (return path: knutsons at elknet.net) and sent to cypherpunks at toad.com was NOT DELIVERED because at least one virus was found within an attachment to it. Details Follow: -----------------> Virus scanning report - 10. August 2001 18:25 F-PROT 3.09a SIGN.DEF created 19. July 2001 SIGN2.DEF created 18. July 2001 MACRO.DEF created 15. July 2001 Search: d:\inetmail\mfilter\TEMP\*.* Action: Report only Files: "Dumb" scan of all files Switches: /ARCHIVE /PACKED /REPORT=d:\inetmail\mfilter\infected.txt /NOBOOT /NOMEM Memory was not scanned. Hard disk boot sectors were not scanned. D:\INETMAIL\MFILTER\TEMP\AVP2273.TMP Infection: W95/Sircam.worm at mm Results of virus scanning: Files: 1 MBRs: 0 Boot sectors: 0 Objects scanned: 1 Infected: 1 Suspicious: 0 Disinfected: 0 Deleted: 0 Renamed: 0 Time: 0:00 -----------------> Original Headers & Text: -----------------> Received: from oemcomputer (unverified [204.95.183.104]) by mail.elknet.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:25:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Knutsons" To: cypherpunks at toad.com Subject: Jonathan Knutson date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:19:17 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----62F4FFE8_Outlook_Express_message_boundary" Content-Disposition: Multipart message ------62F4FFE8_Outlook_Express_message_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: message text Hi! How are you=3F I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later=2E Thanks ------62F4FFE8_Outlook_Express_message_boundary ** message truncated ** -----------------> Anti-Viral Plugin for EMWAC Internet Mail Server (IMS): http://www.zaxalon.com/avp.html?ref=AVPmessage From offers at snowball.ymc0.net Fri Aug 10 16:53:03 2001 From: offers at snowball.ymc0.net (Snowball.com Networks) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:53:03 -0500 Subject: Thank you for joining IGN.com Message-ID: <19bed01c121f7$98133980$3901d20a@yesmail.net> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is brought to you by Snowball.com Networks. We appreciate your membership. To modify your account, please see *Member Services* below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We have on record that you want to receive custom offers and information from IGN.com. Your account has been activated. Now you will receive great offers and information on subjects YOU choose. You can change your interests anytime, just click the link below. Your user ID and password are: Your user ID is: cypherpunks3316 Your password is: firmmath Your are on your way to getting the coolest offers and promotions, brought to you by IGN. Thank you Snowball.com Networks ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *MEMBER SERVICES* To access your account, change your interests or unsubscribe from Snowball.com Networks, just click on the following link http://your.yesmail.net/default.asp?PID=500331&SUBC=33JW55FJ5E&UID=509772717 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 10:04:43 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:04:43 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Infinity Bugs--A new can of worms? In-Reply-To: <200108101640.f7AGeGY18255@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > * The alleged use of "registration sniffers" which Microsoft was > alleged (probably wrongly) to have used a few years ago to scan the > hard disks of users of its products and then this information--it was > alleged--could be retrieved by MS at some point. (I say probably > wrongly for reasons discussed a few years ago. Still, it suggests some > possibilities, which is why I mention it now.) I would be indeed very surprised if Redmondware wasn't backdoored. It would be trivial to slip several hard-to-detect buffer overruns by putting a programmer mole on the team. It would be about as easy to slip such backdoors into an open source system, and be it in application layer. > * There were some cases years ago where Webcams, often built into > monitors or left sitting on top of monitors permanently, could be > turned-on remotely. Even more the case with built-in microphones. It'd > be a hoot if the Feds are finding ways to turn on Webcams and > microphones in homes and businesses. Even to leave trojans on a system > for storing compressed snatches of audio. If h4x0r d00dz can do it http://douglas.min.net/~drw/mirrors/altern.org/bo2kfun/best.html why can't feds do it? Given that NSA allegedly hires top of the crop, especially. > Maybe something like this is the bugging technology the FBI doesn't want > to disclose in open court? This would be rather reserved for *rare* cases involving heavy artillery, as stray packets leaking out would be intercepted by a smart firewall. Anyone knows to put sensitive materials on an air-gap protected low-emission machine (LCD instead of CRT, preferably a wearable with a private eye type of display), right? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 10 17:25:44 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 20:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable Message-ID: Tim wrote: On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 06:32 PM, Faustine wrote: >>> I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to >>> dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security as >>> a donut-chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone imbecile. >>> Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did you ever >>> stop to think about who's really doing the hardcore >>> research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? > I know of an old-school NSA red teamer who's been teaching programming > and engineering since before either one of us was born. An honest-to-god > mathematical genius. Some of those old wizards could teach us all a > thing or two. >>Since I have no idea how old the "Jim" you cite is, and since I suspect >>you are less than 25 years old, your claims are not very impressive. It wasn't meant to be impressive: my only point was that it's not a good idea for young people such as Jim and myself--"whippersnappers", if you prefer--to underestimate those with far more knowledge and experience in the relevant subjects. What could you possibly find to argue with in that. If you or anyone else here believes that no one at Ft. Meade could possibly teach you anything, fine. If you question my ability to recognize a first- rate mathematical mind when I see one, that's fine too. But if you honestly think there aren't information scientists out there every bit as technically competent and clued-in as you are, chances are you're setting yourself up for a rude awakening someday. Intellectual hubris... >We have had (and may still have) list members who were developing >systems for the NSA in 1963, fully 37 years ago. (Cf. "Harvest" in >Bamford's 1983 book. A hardy reader will known what I'm talking about.) The fact that list members have NSA work experience hardly refutes the point I was making that you shouldn't dismiss someone as a donut-chomping incompetent on the basis of his taking government work. >You twentysomething grad student should be very careful when talking >about 'before either one of us was born." While probably true, of little >significance. It's all in the context. ~Faustine. From bill.stewart at pobox.com Fri Aug 10 20:34:16 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 20:34:16 -0700 Subject: Hacking Internet Park Benches Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010810203354.02f6c1e0@idiom.com> Turns out it's really just a park bench with four phone lines for laptop users to plug in modems, and nobody'd thought to block long distance or international calls. After they'd called their local council, they called Bill Gates's secretary, but didn't reach Mr. Bill himself. -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 11:12 AM To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: the Internet park bench >Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:35:01 -0400 >To: farber at cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) >From: Richard Jay Solomon >Subject: the Internet park bench > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1481000/1481783.stm Thursday, 9 August, 2001, 13:44 GMT 14:44 UK Bad start for internet bench The teenagers took advantage of the free service Two teenagers discovered the world's first internet bench could be used to make free international telephone calls. The cyber-seat, which is based in a public park in Suffolk, UK, went online on Monday. Neil Woodman and Dan Sanderson, both 17, took a normal telephone handset along to the bench, which was created by Microsoft's MSN service in partnership with the local council. The pair cheekily phoned St Edmondsbury Council to warn them of the problem and then tried to call Microsoft boss, Bill Gates. For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ From drevil at sidereal.kz Fri Aug 10 14:04:51 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 10 Aug 2001 21:04:51 -0000 Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR In-Reply-To: (ptrei@rsasecurity.com) References: Message-ID: <20010810210451.4701.qmail@sidereal.kz> > I think text is the wrong approach. Put up some pictures, > and a question - 'Click on the white bunny' 'Click on the > chipmunk' 'Click on the Russian icon'. 'Click on the clowns nose' > 'Click on the clown's right hand' > > Taking text, which is explicitly designed to be readable, and > trying to find a degree of distortion which is human (but not machine) > readable is probably a bad approach. Try something a 6 year old > can do, but which is still a PhD thesis problem for computers. Actually, I thought about that option. There are two problems with it: First, I need to find a bunch of non-copyright clip art which displays clearly on any different browser, and then map it, and then write a big database of questions. This isn't difficult, but it's time-consuming. I'm a big believer in "do something now, refine it later on". The second problem with that is that for one of my applications, it needs to be highly cross-cultural. Many of the users will be non-English-speaking, who might not know what the word "clown" means, and any non-abstract image has a potential for offending someone. If one of my images is a pig, maybe some Orthodox Jews will be annoyed. If one image is a woman with her face exposed, maybe some Moslems will be offended. If one image is a policeman, maybe some c'punks will be offended. Who knows. People are constantly seeking new ways of being offended as a way of telling other people what to do. People should have thicker skins, but they don't, and when it comes to making money, I want customers, not controversy. The last thing I want is for some rumor that my system is anti-something because some image of something-or-other is used. As an example, for years there have been rumors about Proctor and Gamble being run by Satanists, because they have stars in their logo. Not goats, or a head with horns, but plain old stars! A hundred-year-old well-established brand! In my effort to support the largest user-base possible, numbers are the way to go. (Oh wait, maybe I had better put a filter so it doesn't display 666 or 69 or 444 or 13...) I'll make improvements as I go. From jeffax at hotmail.com Fri Aug 10 21:29:53 2001 From: jeffax at hotmail.com (Jeff Lawik) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:29:53 Subject: To Whom It May Concern.... Brand New 2x15 Forced Matrix In Pre Launch! Message-ID: <200108110129.VAA14579@waste.minder.net> ================ Earn and Learn ================ Free Sign Up During Pre Launch! http://mlmdownlineclub.com/members/jeffrey14 The MLM Downline Club officially launches on the 1st of September. We are now in pre-launch so get set, and grab a top position for FREE! You will receive professional MultiLevel Marketing training, support, software, and access to our huge members section, jammed packed with secret advice, ebooks, website scripts, and fantastic services like top email services and promotion tools ... Now bundle the whole package into a forced 2x15 level matrix, and you have an incredible opportunity to earn BIG MONEY in the best pre- launch of 2001! MLMDC is financially backed by MLM industry leader "MLMarketing" and the lighting fast member servers are powered by the WebSiteHosting-Service. Good partners, excellent software, training and services, and an incredibly HOT compensation plan are only a few of the features of the new MLM Downline Club ... http://mlmdownlineclub.com/members/jeffrey14 Join for free right now, start building your own personal matrix and get set to earn a solid residual income AND learn the hidden secrets of multiLevel marketing by the pros of the industry. ========================= The Benefits Of MLMDC: ========================= - Learn how to *REALLY* market goods and services. - Receive software that will increase your productivity, whilst also providing you with resale options for profit. - Earn a solid income with a 2x15 matrix compensation plan. - Learn the "insider" secrets of successful promotion, by reading and participating in our marketing forums, moderated by some of the most successful internet marketers of all time. - Save more money by taking advantage of our member specials. We have worked SERIOUS discounts with a number of online firms. - Establish a legal, solid and profitable residual income that will continue to grow with and without your help for years ... - Consolidate your online marketing campaigns, promote other programs, and establish strong and profitable business relationships between fellow MLM Downline Club members. http://mlmdownlineclub.com/members/jeffrey14 =================== It's Your Choice: =================== You have read the marketing. You have a general idea of MLMDC. It is your choice now. We would love to see you at our MLMDC forums. Take a look at the MLM Downline Club today, and change the way you market: http://mlmdownlineclub.com/members/jeffrey14 Thanks for reading! Sincerely, Jeff Lawik From vrakanga at msn.com Fri Aug 10 19:29:33 2001 From: vrakanga at msn.com (vrakanga at msn.com) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:29:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Stressed with Debt??? Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7845 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nobody at dizum.com Fri Aug 10 13:30:29 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:30:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Frog Gossip Message-ID: J.A. Terranson wrote: > Same question for using the least trusted remailer [frog comes to > mind :-(]. Please elaborate. From nobody at paranoici.org Fri Aug 10 13:51:56 2001 From: nobody at paranoici.org (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:51:56 +0200 Subject: It's DMCA, stupid (was Re: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft) Message-ID: The US government is re-visiting the beaten path of behaviour control, by incriminating genital actions and instilling fear in its subjects - whenever you get an erection or get wet, you may be doing something illegal, so to cure the guilt after a nice orgasm pay taxes, turn in your neighbour and participate in polls. This works very well. Most sheeple will automagically condemn "child porn" (that is recording visible-light illuminated genitals of humans of various ages below government-sanctioned limit and displaying them.) US Government owns the copyright to penises and vaginas of all its subjects and will diligently pursue all infringements. No such thing as fair use here. The copyright is enforced by exploiting sex-guilt brainwashing deeply embedded into american sheeple and combining in with "for the children" scam that has developed nicely in recent decades. The only way to combat this is to refuse the premise. The moment you agree that "child porn is bad" you have co-opted into the scam. Until you are able to say and act on the premise that "child genital display and sex" is OK you will be fucked, and your progeny as well. Very few can do this, and the government knows it. And you will continue to be fucked. You deserve it. For a long time I thought that "stupid americans" is just another generalisation. But now I begin to suspect that there is something genetic about it. Something in the food or in the air. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 13:54:22 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:54:22 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [linux-elitists] drew is so fuckin' l33t! (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:58:38 +0000 From: M. Drew Streib To: Don Marti , linux-elitists at zgp.org Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] drew is so fuckin' l33t! On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 10:02:04AM -0700, Don Marti wrote: > 1. Make contact with one of the isolated tribes of GPG users who are > not part of the strong set. All those people will then be connected, > but far away from everyone except you, bwah ha ha. Also, make contact with people far away from you _in_ the strong set, thus making a "bridge" between widely separated parts of set. This requires more people to "travel" over you for short paths. bwah ha ha. > 2. Teach a class on GPG and get all your students to sign your key. Vis a vis Peter Wan, #1 on the list, and a professor at GA Tech. Great spreader of the faith, this man... 4. Sell your house, clothes, and other belongings and become a prophet of cryptography. Normally, you would be faceless and noone would know who you _really_ were. But in this case, you'll have your GPG identity, which is better than any flesh-and-blood ID anyway. > Hey, wait a minute -- the ways to get more Drew juice are also > the ways to expand the usefulness of the web of trust and get more > people started using crypto. Way to use elitism for good. "Drew juice". :) One of my friends is very into PS2 Gauntlet recently, and suggests I begin assigning levels. "Don Marti, you are now a level 27 keywhore." But yes, I'm doing my best to only encourage _good_ behavior from this ranking, which is why the main report is structured as it is. > (I've already written a puff piece on Drew for LJ.) Heh, is this the wonderful email garden writeup, or am I to be expecting something different? You're quite the writer, my friend. BTW, I still have your server sitting in my bar. Maybe burnallmp3s.org becomes an Ogg Vorbis shrine. -drew -- M. Drew Streib | http://dtype.org/ FSG | Linux International freedb | SourceForge From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 10 13:54:22 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:54:22 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [linux-elitists] drew is so fuckin' l33t! (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:58:38 +0000 From: M. Drew Streib To: Don Marti , linux-elitists at zgp.org Subject: Re: [linux-elitists] drew is so fuckin' l33t! On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 10:02:04AM -0700, Don Marti wrote: > 1. Make contact with one of the isolated tribes of GPG users who are > not part of the strong set. All those people will then be connected, > but far away from everyone except you, bwah ha ha. Also, make contact with people far away from you _in_ the strong set, thus making a "bridge" between widely separated parts of set. This requires more people to "travel" over you for short paths. bwah ha ha. > 2. Teach a class on GPG and get all your students to sign your key. Vis a vis Peter Wan, #1 on the list, and a professor at GA Tech. Great spreader of the faith, this man... 4. Sell your house, clothes, and other belongings and become a prophet of cryptography. Normally, you would be faceless and noone would know who you _really_ were. But in this case, you'll have your GPG identity, which is better than any flesh-and-blood ID anyway. > Hey, wait a minute -- the ways to get more Drew juice are also > the ways to expand the usefulness of the web of trust and get more > people started using crypto. Way to use elitism for good. "Drew juice". :) One of my friends is very into PS2 Gauntlet recently, and suggests I begin assigning levels. "Don Marti, you are now a level 27 keywhore." But yes, I'm doing my best to only encourage _good_ behavior from this ranking, which is why the main report is structured as it is. > (I've already written a puff piece on Drew for LJ.) Heh, is this the wonderful email garden writeup, or am I to be expecting something different? You're quite the writer, my friend. BTW, I still have your server sitting in my bar. Maybe burnallmp3s.org becomes an Ogg Vorbis shrine. -drew -- M. Drew Streib | http://dtype.org/ FSG | Linux International freedb | SourceForge From mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net Fri Aug 10 14:57:41 2001 From: mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net (Anonymous Coredump) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:57:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Famous Stanford Spy Camera Message-ID: <550a37bed1715980efd0b1a8713152d4@remailer.segfault.net> Bill Stewart wrote: > SF Bay Area Cypherpunks August 2001 Physical Meeting Announcement > PLACE: Tressider Student Union Courtyard, > Stanford University Campus > Palo Alto, California, USA We should go take a look at the famous Stanford spy camera on the roof of Barnes. Barnes is a relatively tall building in Escondido Village on the south side of the campus. The camera can be clearly seen from the ground. The camera was installed for the World Cup a few years back. It is remotely controlled and is used to zoom in on faces at great distances. During the World Cup, the faces of fans were fed to a bullpen of representatives of "anti-terrorism" organizations from around the world. So far as I know, no computer recognition was used, but the effect is the same. Given that the U.S. has often been a haven for dissidents, and that universities in particular are advertised as havens for those with unpopular ideas, it would be interesting to know which precautions, if any, Stanford took to ensure the safety of those attending the Cup. "Anti-terrorist" organizations are often no more than secret police departments whose primary mission is repressing the political views of their citizens. Were the participating agents allowed to take pictures home? Were the images saved for later analysis, for instance by computer? Which nations participated and could any of them be said to have repressive governments? Some damage is unavoidable as even the knowledge of the presence of a dissident in the Bay Area could create problems. (Secret police are not confined to their countries of origin and often receive the cooperation of the U.S. Federal Government.) Likewise, simply associating with a known dissident could create difficulties for those returning to their native countries, or even for U.S. citizens visiting those countries. Given the international presence, the Federal government was clearly involved. Which organizations were involved? Has Rep. Dick Armey been informed of this involvement? What does Stanford use the camera for now? From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Fri Aug 10 17:45:39 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (ENSE-CUR) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 02:45:39 +0200 Subject: publi./desarrollo Message-ID: <200108110052.f7B0qtA89330@pax.minder.net> 8.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia COFOR-Gestion Integral.1.SL Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. Con amplias indicaciones sobre bolsa de trabajo salidas laborales ect. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- cURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas(El dia 16.de Agosto Inaguramos la web).No lo piense mas y envia un e-mail y recibiras todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve,estos cursos suponen una inteligente INVERSION POR SU PARTE. Envie e-mail: COFOTRE at terra.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUR.MEDI at terra.es Jose Navarro Broker-COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL Isaac Albeniz 16. 30009-MURCIA España ------------------ From CATHY4323 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 04:42:09 2001 From: CATHY4323 at hotmail.com (CATHY4323 at hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 04:42:09 Subject: Register to win your Dream Vacation Message-ID: <200108131025.DAA14125@toad.com> You have been specially selected to qualify for the following: Premium Vacation Package and Pentium PC Giveaway To review the details of the please click on the link with the confirmation number below: http://vacation.1xin.net Confirmation Number#Lh340 Please confirm your entry within 24 hours of receipt of this confirmation. Wishing you a fun filled vacation! If you should have any additional questions or cann't connect to the site do not hesitate to contact me direct: mailto:vacation at btamail.net.cn?subject=Help! From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 11 04:49:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 04:49:26 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: References: <3B71DB0A.15148.B9E4F9@localhost> Message-ID: <3B74B956.19472.F048D@localhost> -- Faustine: > > > I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to > > > dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security > > > as a donut- chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone > > > imbecile. > > > > > > Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did > > > you ever stop to think about who's really doing the > > > hardcore research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? James A. Donald: > > To judge by their most recent crypto ballsup, some donut > > chomping incompetents. Faustine > That's just as inaccurate as condeming everyone who ever worked > for Microsoft as clueless because of their corporate propensity > for security lapses. You wouldn't go that far, would you? Microsoft, as a whole, is incompetent at security. All supposedly secure software coming out of Microsoft varies from poor to worthless. Does anyone doubt it? They take standard well known methods and make well known bungles in applying it and customizing it. We do not get to see much of the spook output. What we have seen in recent years is not good. During world war II the government sucked up all the best people from the open sector, and put them to work in the secret sector. For example most of the words greatest scientists wound up hand making nuclear weapons. However, one would expect, with the passage of time, that people who work in secret would suffer from Parkinson's law, and this appears to be happening. > I know of an old-school NSA red teamer who's been teaching > programming and engineering since before either one of us was > born. An honest-to-god mathematical genius. Some of those old > wizards could teach us all a thing or two. But whether the > donut-chomping incompetents have the upper hand is anyone's > guess. I wouldn't bet on it in the long run. I would bet on it in the long run. It is inherent in the nature of government. Without the market weeding out the unfit and pressuring everyone for excellence, bureaucracies unavoidably decay for well known reasons. Microsoft produces crap security because most of their customers do not know any better. Therefore NSA will produce crap security because their customers are forbidden to know any better. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG FwLinDdmbEa6PhxFDMsPXCIlj97FlY1YpxKNR3KV 4FBpZ7okXglgl5/19J96vLLEaPc1wi1VxGVTGCRJf From secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net Fri Aug 10 22:36:00 2001 From: secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net (Secret Squirrel) Date: 11 Aug 2001 05:36:00 -0000 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS Message-ID: <20010811053600.11774.qmail@nym.alias.net> Why is everyone pussyfooting around the bomb plan thing all the time? Why doesn't one of the lawyers on the list, or somebody like Tim, who can afford a good lawyer, just start a daily posting of pages from one of those CIA manuals that Loompanics or whoever sells, with all the explosive and incendiary formulas? What possible charge could the trolling LEO's make? From qcbusoso at att.net Sat Aug 11 04:56:33 2001 From: qcbusoso at att.net (qcbusoso at att.net) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 07:56:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Stressed with Debt??? Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 8639 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 11 09:51:33 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 09:51:33 -0700 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: References: <200108091738.f79Hc2510280@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B750025.14650.93664@localhost> -- On 10 Aug 2001, at 11:48, Eugene Leitl wrote: > Anhydrous hydrazine is toxic (and carcinogenic), and difficult > to get. If you want to assist evolution, point people towards > something which can be easily bought, made, and something so > sensitive no sensible person would use. Someone should set up a web page on that wonderful explosive made from red phosphorus and potassium chlorate. It is potent, and its extreme instability makes it very good in booby traps. It was used for this purpose in Word War I. Its remarkable instablity also makes applying it successfully an intelligence test that few would pass. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG /X5G+7Pu8Mxoj4Sb6okOGetr7ktpTvtti4/NpTxq 4/HNaSVLlHG6ydxk8eIm9TV9XlFZM0S4Q84+XIA1x From jamesd at echeque.com Sat Aug 11 10:19:57 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 10:19:57 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B7506CD.31025.233975@localhost> -- On 10 Aug 2001, at 20:25, Faustine wrote: > If you or anyone else here believes that no one at Ft. Meade > could possibly teach you anything, fine. There are lots of people at Ft Meade who could teach me stuff, but, in accord with Parkinson's law, they will be at the bottom of the heap, where they are no longer a danger to anyone. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG fl6up0OFsHTZdqlRKNF4A+ch5Ebe0joElFrmzinx 47vACgdxvAjRnEQpyXZ9sPwhj0k/hVZbhtdv2kVmg From cryptomjs at eudoramail.com Sat Aug 11 12:00:19 2001 From: cryptomjs at eudoramail.com (Mark Saarelainen) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:00:19 -0700 Subject: Currently on alt.politics.org.cia there are some interesting discussions ... Message-ID: USENET: alt.politics.org.cia Basically, these are pertaining to brain wavelets and how electromagnetic beaming technologies with remote sensing capabilities can detect wavelets and how wavelets can be communicated to a subject's mind. Markku Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From decoy at iki.fi Sat Aug 11 02:57:01 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:57:01 +0300 (EEST) Subject: IP: Fwd: FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES (fromNewsScan Daily) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: >>FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES >>The Finnish government is considering using SIMs -- the subscriber >>information modules inside every cell phone -- to take the place of its >>national identity card, and eventually even a passport. Essentially they are thinking about putting FINEID into SIMs alongside the GSM subscriber application. FINEID is PKI implemented by the Finnish government, or more accurately, Vdestvrekisterikeskus (Population Register Center). See http://www.fineid.fi/. It is currently used in the smartcard version of our national ID card which is used to enable dsigging transactions with governmental and municipal authorities. If I'm not entirely mistaken, Finnish law has already been amended to make dsigs binding in the eyes of the law, so basically you can use the card for any transaction. The infrastructure is not widely deployed, yet, and few people have FINEID enabled ID cards. About Eugene's fears, one already needs a national ID card here, since it is needed to "prove" your identity whenever you have dealings with governmental authorities, or try to withdraw money from a bank, or whathaveyou. (In fact this is one of the fun countries where the police has the authority to detain you until such time they can verify your identity, for no reason whatsoever.) Since everybody has one such document already, and the vast majority also has a cell phone, the extension to FINEID on SIM ought to be relatively painless. I suspect there will be little outrage over the matter, here. >>Under the plan, the >>computer chip embedded in every SIM would store personal information, >>transforming the SIM into a person's legal proof of identity. That personal information is very limited in the current incarnations of FINEID. The application is basically a government certified binding between a running identifier (called SATU) assigned by person, and the person's first and last names. It is pretty strange that even as we do have a unique ID ("henkilvtunnus") in use for the populus, that is not included on-card. SATU does constitute another such number, if it's ever assigned to a significant majority of Finnish people, but there seems to be no way for an ordinary reader of an ID card to tie SATU to the national ID. VRK of course has the means, since they assign both numbers, and the info likely leaks... Now, it is quite probable that they'll include a digitized photograph and maybe fingerprints if FINEID is ever used to sub for a passport. That is something even I'm pretty concerned about. The same goes doublefold for any attempt to make the FINEID app invokable remotely, when the SIM is attached to a phone. >>Currently FINEID uses a smart card and a card reader attached to a PC, >>but the plan is to migrate to an SIM, says Vesa Vatka of the Finnish >>Population Register Center in Helsinki. (New Scientist) Which, of course, are basically the same thing. I believe the application already exists. It'll likely be put out in a year or two, likely without a significant counter-reaction over here. The interesting part for most people on this list is that if the application ever gathers support on the phone manufacturer side, it might well be that the app has some potential to spread abroad as a result. I'm mainly speaking about Nokia, with its Finnish roots and dominance of the GSM market, but also whichever companies thrive in the 3G mobile arena -- the latter will work unchanged in Europe, Japan and the US. If models are produced which support PKI-on-phone, they might well be easy to deploy throughout the world. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From decoy at iki.fi Sat Aug 11 02:57:01 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:57:01 +0300 (EEST) Subject: IP: Fwd: FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES (fromNewsScan Daily) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: >>FINLAND MULLS PUTTING NATIONAL IDs ON CELL PHONES >>The Finnish government is considering using SIMs -- the subscriber >>information modules inside every cell phone -- to take the place of its >>national identity card, and eventually even a passport. Essentially they are thinking about putting FINEID into SIMs alongside the GSM subscriber application. FINEID is PKI implemented by the Finnish government, or more accurately, Väestörekisterikeskus (Population Register Center). See http://www.fineid.fi/. It is currently used in the smartcard version of our national ID card which is used to enable dsigging transactions with governmental and municipal authorities. If I'm not entirely mistaken, Finnish law has already been amended to make dsigs binding in the eyes of the law, so basically you can use the card for any transaction. The infrastructure is not widely deployed, yet, and few people have FINEID enabled ID cards. About Eugene's fears, one already needs a national ID card here, since it is needed to "prove" your identity whenever you have dealings with governmental authorities, or try to withdraw money from a bank, or whathaveyou. (In fact this is one of the fun countries where the police has the authority to detain you until such time they can verify your identity, for no reason whatsoever.) Since everybody has one such document already, and the vast majority also has a cell phone, the extension to FINEID on SIM ought to be relatively painless. I suspect there will be little outrage over the matter, here. >>Under the plan, the >>computer chip embedded in every SIM would store personal information, >>transforming the SIM into a person's legal proof of identity. That personal information is very limited in the current incarnations of FINEID. The application is basically a government certified binding between a running identifier (called SATU) assigned by person, and the person's first and last names. It is pretty strange that even as we do have a unique ID ("henkilötunnus") in use for the populus, that is not included on-card. SATU does constitute another such number, if it's ever assigned to a significant majority of Finnish people, but there seems to be no way for an ordinary reader of an ID card to tie SATU to the national ID. VRK of course has the means, since they assign both numbers, and the info likely leaks... Now, it is quite probable that they'll include a digitized photograph and maybe fingerprints if FINEID is ever used to sub for a passport. That is something even I'm pretty concerned about. The same goes doublefold for any attempt to make the FINEID app invokable remotely, when the SIM is attached to a phone. >>Currently FINEID uses a smart card and a card reader attached to a PC, >>but the plan is to migrate to an SIM, says Vesa Vatka of the Finnish >>Population Register Center in Helsinki. (New Scientist) Which, of course, are basically the same thing. I believe the application already exists. It'll likely be put out in a year or two, likely without a significant counter-reaction over here. The interesting part for most people on this list is that if the application ever gathers support on the phone manufacturer side, it might well be that the app has some potential to spread abroad as a result. I'm mainly speaking about Nokia, with its Finnish roots and dominance of the GSM market, but also whichever companies thrive in the 3G mobile arena -- the latter will work unchanged in Europe, Japan and the US. If models are produced which support PKI-on-phone, they might well be easy to deploy throughout the world. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From offered2u at yahoo.com Sat Aug 11 11:09:45 2001 From: offered2u at yahoo.com (offered2u at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 01 13:09:45 EST Subject: The Hottest and The Easiest Home Business EVER!!! Message-ID: Dear Friend, May I have your permission to send you FREE information of an exciting and very profitable Ez2Run online business? It is truly the Hottest and the Easiest home business today! Fortune 500 company. Fully Automated Internet Business. You can make up to $14,000 per month in your spare time! It is NOT a chain letter, NOT a get-rich-quick scam. It is a legitimate online business that has been around for over 16 years! This home business is for REAL! No Hype! Please click below to receive FREE VITAL INFORMATION you must: Send Email To: my24_7biz at prontomail.com with Subject: SEND MORE INFO PLEASE!!! You will be glad you did! Thank you and have a great day! This business only available in the US and Canada at this time. With My Warmest Regards, Jan From decoy at iki.fi Sat Aug 11 03:15:27 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 13:15:27 +0300 (EEST) Subject: BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: >Hey, is ammonium nitrate fertilizer a watched substance yet? You need something to start the detonation. It's back to nitrates and fulminates. (Mercury fulminate is the thing to weed out idiots -- easy to make, sensitive as hell, and releases mercury, which of course is neurotoxic.) Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sat Aug 11 17:31:00 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 14:31:00 -1000 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: References: <20010811191832.20464.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010811125421.02aedb70@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> I held my tongue, but enough: At 10:22 AM 8/11/01, Aimee Farr wrote: >> Behalf Of Dr. Evil >> Why are we talking about this? Because we can. See Descartes. >> There are dozens of websites and books that cover all of this. They do not post here. >> It is boring. It is pointless. Some people are bored. You bore me with your whining. You don't get it, do you? >Ditto, and it can be used to mischaracterize the list and participants. 1 vote for moderation, check. Crossing the street to get to the other side can be mischaracterized. So can using a toilet properly and then flushing afterwards. >Should some continue to persist, they might notice a sudden, and sharp >influx of new female personalities discussing.... poontang? here? where? >-interior decorating tips >-personal hygiene >-manicures & hair styles >-the new official colors for 2001 > >...and so on, and etc. Check the archives Aimee, look for crossposts between cypherpunks and the rhizome-raw list (oh, about 18-24 months ago, wild guess). Do you think a group of happy-clappy homemakers can do better? Reese From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 11 13:22:59 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 15:22:59 -0500 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <20010811191832.20464.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of Dr. Evil > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 2:19 PM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: RE BOMB PLANS > > > Why are we talking about this? There are dozens of websites and books > that cover all of this. It is boring. It is pointless. Ditto, and it can be used to mischaracterize the list and participants. Should some continue to persist, they might notice a sudden, and sharp influx of new female personalities discussing.... -interior decorating tips -personal hygiene -manicures & hair styles -the new official colors for 2001 ...and so on, and etc. ~Aimee From nobody at dizum.com Sat Aug 11 06:50:12 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 15:50:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: BOMB PLANS Message-ID: <7219afed571044b933d8f1e5d4b232dd@dizum.com> Sampo said: >On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: > >>Hey, is ammonium nitrate fertilizer a watched substance yet? > >You need something to start the detonation. It's back to nitrates and >fulminates. (Mercury fulminate is the thing to weed out idiots -- easy to >make, sensitive as hell, and releases mercury, which of course is >neurotoxic.) Blackpowder works fine, is easy to make from scratch. You get sulpher from the garden store, charcoal is easily made or bought, and potassium nitrate is easily extracted from manure, or just save up your piss for awhile. And all you need to set off black powerder is a fuse or a match. From rickan2000 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 09:08:51 2001 From: rickan2000 at hotmail.com (rickan glueckstein) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:08:51 +0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: list _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org Sat Aug 11 13:25:18 2001 From: anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org (An Metet) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:25:18 -0400 Subject: Microsoft Viruses Message-ID: James Donald wrote: > Microsoft, as a whole, is incompetent at security. All supposedly > secure software coming out of Microsoft varies from poor to > worthless. Does anyone doubt it? They take standard well known > methods and make well known bungles in applying it and customizing > it. It's hard to believe even Microsoft could be this incompetent. E-mail viruses had been a running joke for years before Microsoft seized the day and made them possible. Now we are seeing calls for what amounts to internet driving licenses and other repressive schemes. Like the bomb plans and pornography hysteria, this is an attack on the Net. The simpletons now think viruses are just something that happens, like somebody getting a cold. The media methodically deceives the public by hunting for scapegoats and propagating Big Lies. Honest media coverage would report on "Microsoft Viruses" and caution people against the use of Microsoft products. They should get at least the same treatment a tire company gets when its products are defective. Typically, when the U.S. media exhibits this behavior it is because the issue has political significance. (And let us not forget the Net is seen as a dangerous competitor.) We should treat this is an organized witch hunt or red scare. > Microsoft produces crap security because most of their customers do > not know any better. Poor lambs. From ashwood at msn.com Sat Aug 11 14:46:28 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:46:28 -0500 Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops References: Message-ID: <004b01c122af$8e12c320$8ac1b6c7@josephas> First let me say those were not my numbers, those numbers were supplied by another source, I simply reiterated them. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" To: Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 6:19 PM Subject: CDR: Re: Mixmaster Message Drops > > On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > > Well assuming that the remailers are under attack, we start using digital > > signatures with initiation information stored in them. Mallet can introduce > > duplicates, > > Duplicates are not drops, signatures do nothing for drops. You're changing > the rules in the middle of the game. Actually if you are simply testing the number of messages that come in versus the number that go out, duplicates are a worry. If we are ignoring the content then a message stream of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,121,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 looks identical to 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 so that failure mode needs to be addressed, the individual signatures addresses that issue, which means that we can distinguish between the two message streams. This allow us to detect that numbers 13 and 17 for example) got dropped, and to cover the seperatation in the stream Mallet duplicated messages 7 and 11. This gives us a level of tracability that we can enforce ourselves outside of the network system. I believe that detecting and eliminating duplicates eliminates a very important activity that Mallet could perform to throw off our measurements. > > > Q: How to inject traffic into the remailer network anonymously? > > > > through a set of trusted remailers, > > Which we don't have if we accept your numbers. Depending on the technology > you're trying to vet is a recipe for disaster (well Mallet won't think > so). Actually you can start with just one trusted remailer. If you can get in an personally inspect 1 remailer, or run it yourself, you can trust a single one. Once the single trust location has been established you begin routing information through that single entry point, and make use of that entry point to measure to depth 2. Once you have built trust in a depth 2 entry point, you can then test it as a depth 1, making sure that mallet doesn't allow just a single entry point proper passthrough. From there you will have 2+ entry points to begin more depth 2 tests, from 2+ locations to begin with, repeat until the trust base has reached the necessary levels. Of course this testing has to be maintained continually, but the ability to send a couple dozen messages through each remailer each day should provide enough maintenance power. Joe From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 14:51:34 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:51:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Feds Want To Write Your Software In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010806154826.0404ee40@pop3.lvcm.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Steve Schear wrote: > Issues > When looking at antitrust it seems prudent to consider, to whatever degree > possible, whether regulatory intervention achieves the intended goals or > whether it merely substitutes one set of problems for another. Market > dominance/penetration has been a major issue in antitrust. Reduction of > consumer choice through stifling of innovation should be included with > predatory pricing and other consumer impacts in consideration of antitrust. > At a workshop presentation last spring I suggested a non-regulatory way to > include reduction in choice effects. Under the proposed changes Congress > would set market size and penetration limits for all markets (based on SIC > or its newer offspring) exceeding some minimum size threshold (e.g., 0.1% > GNP) and enabling competitors to sue in federal court for removal of > trademarks and copyrights of the monopolist related to the industry in > question. Since trademarks and copyrights are privileges and not rights > they can, theoretically, be rescinded. You consider Congress setting market penetration limits as 'non-regulatory'? Somebody didn't eath their Wheaties this morning... -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ashwood at msn.com Sat Aug 11 15:14:34 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:14:34 -0500 Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops References: Message-ID: <007e01c122b3$03819980$8ac1b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" To: Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 7:07 PM Subject: CDR: Re: Mixmaster Message Drops > > On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > > > Actually you can start with just one trusted remailer. > > Bull. Well technically you begin by granting trust to someone, the easiest being yourself. Then you build trust in something else, use trust in one thing to build trust in another. Regardless you have to establish trust in a single location, before you can build trust in multiple. > > > If you can get in an personally inspect 1 remailer, or run it yourself, you > > can trust a single one. > > Only so long as you have a process to vet its current behabiour against > past behaviour. I'm only worrying about future behavior, the past being something that will never matter again in the behavior of the system, especially since we can't plan on testing "in the past." In this particular case we are only concerned with whether or not it will forward every message sent to it within some very tight bounds so it is unlikely that a non-malicious entity would change the configuration, if the configuration is changed in that respect then it will be detected later on during the testing phase. The issue being that it will represent other remailers as undependable, possibly while making itself look flawless. This is a very difficult problem to solve. > As to remailers you don't operate, you're trust with > respect to 'getting in' lasts until you walk out. But we can build trust in it's ability to forward messages in a way that is for some definition anonymous, in particular the project is to eliminate it's dropping of messages either at random or maliciously, or at least determine which remailers perform the dropping and with what rate. > Once you're gone the > potential for re-config'ing the remailer is present. Which won't matter because the particular behavior we are trying to detect will be reported on if they change, simply by the fact that the messages will be dropped. All we're trying to do is build trust in the ability of a single location to begin an anonymous analysis of the abilities of the others to forward messages without dropping any (save a small ratio). Joe From a3495 at cotse.com Sat Aug 11 14:20:50 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Keylogger detection -- HookProtect Message-ID: Somebody behind a remailer wrote: > Where's the source, Faustine? Tell you what: why don't you learn assembler, rip it open with whatever the "purist" equivalent of IDAPro is (http://www.datarescue.be/downloadfreeware.htm) and and have yourself a ball. Seriously. >Why would anyone concerned about >personal security want to use something like this? Because the technology behind it is interesting and it addresses a problem associated with detecting keyloggers in a unique way. >For all anybody >knows, this was put together by some of your friends in NSA to >lull the sheeple with fake security audits -- or maybe it finds >key loggers, just not the ones the feebs install. For all anybody knows, you're a federal feeb behind a remailer trying to suss out exactly what I know and don't know about keystroke loggers. But how likely is that. > Besides which it only runs on shitty M$-OS, nobody who is even >the slightest concerned (and has clue) would trust that. If it aint >linux, and ain't opensource, it ain't shit. That's arguable. But don't forget that a lot of people have to use Windows at work. I think HookProtect is better than nothing. > Building something like this seems like a very cpunkerly thing to do Have fun! ~Faustine. From a3495 at cotse.com Sat Aug 11 14:55:45 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:55:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable In-Reply-To: <3B7506CD.31025.233975@localhost> References: <3B7506CD.31025.233975@localhost> Message-ID: Jim wrote: > On 10 Aug 2001, at 20:25, Faustine wrote: >> If you or anyone else here believes that no one at Ft. Meade >> could possibly teach you anything, fine. > > There are lots of people at Ft Meade who could teach me stuff, > but, in accord with Parkinson's law, they will be at the bottom > of the heap, where they are no longer a danger to anyone. Hardly! And what about all the first-rate people who were "outsourced" in the 90s, along with the boatloads of project work that got contracted out to the DoD federally funded R&D centers like MITRE and the CNA Corporation? What about In-Q-Tel and the feelers being put out toward public-private partnerships? The very fact that they're trying to adapt to the times indicates that if the quality of research isn't keeping up with developments in the private sector, they certainly have no intention of letting it stay that way for long. It's a grave mistake, I'm telling you: plenty of people would like nothing more than for someone like you to kick back because you think you don't have anything to worry about. ~Faustine. From Kevinmk at usa.com Sat Aug 11 16:09:59 2001 From: Kevinmk at usa.com (Kevinmk at usa.com) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 01 18:09:59 EST Subject: First? or Last? Message-ID: <200108121207.FAA05257@toad.com> Hello, Are you looking for your first Home business...or your last? If it's your first, wouldn't you like it to be your last? Your last should be like going home....it should be the one that allows you to double your full time income on a part time basis, is stable, will be there for your heirs, and give you the lifestyle you dream of. Wouldn't it be great ....... EXPLOSIVE GROWTH of a proven, business-building internet marketing system? May I have your permission to send you a URL link to show you an internet run, rapidly expanding leg in a company that has a 16 year track record, 15 years of double digit growth, no inventory to buy or sell, and whose successful representative have nearly all found this to be the "last" business they needed? Just reply to this letter with "show me" in the subject line and I'll send the link along. (If you'd like to receive additional info by snail mail, please include your full name, address, and phone in the body.) Best Regards, Kevin *To be removed from this list please reply with REMOVE as the Subject* From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 16:19:15 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:19:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops In-Reply-To: <020301c12059$ac5def60$dfc0b6c7@josephas> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Choate" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:05 PM > Subject: CDR: Re: Mixmaster Message Drops > > > > The next major question is to determine where the drops are happening. > > Inbound, outbound, inter-remailer, intra-remailer? > > That matters from a correction view but not from a usage view, which I > assume we're taking. Basically we don't care what technology the remailer > uses as long as it is correct technology and trustable. From there we care > only what remailers are disfunctional and which are useful. It matters from a resolution perspective as well. The fact is you claim 1/20 messages are being dropped (per remailer or per submission? Do you see any difference in drop rate dependent upon number of remailers, you should?). That's an ASTOUNDINGLY high figure. Several orders of magnitude over any expectation of 'normal' behaviour. This means that not only is the technology itself under question, but its implimentation as well. In short, with this level of failure you can't 'trust' anything. > Well assuming that the remailers are under attack, we start using digital > signatures with initiation information stored in them. Mallet can introduce > duplicates, Duplicates are not drops, signatures do nothing for drops. You're changing the rules in the middle of the game. > > Q: How to inject traffic into the remailer network anonymously? > > through a set of trusted remailers, Which we don't have if we accept your numbers. Depending on the technology you're trying to vet is a recipe for disaster (well Mallet won't think so). -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 16:24:31 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:24:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: peer to peer wireless WAN? In-Reply-To: <20010809191351.X360@aba.krakow.pl> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Pawel Krawczyk wrote: > I was thinking about building medium size WANs based on peer to peer > radio links and wonder if such technology exists already? http://einstein.ssz.com/hangar18 Ad Hoc Networking Perkins ISBN 0-201-30976-9 -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 16:50:01 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:50:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Secret Warrants In-Reply-To: <88974177e660a0c3e89888dca462bffc@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, A. Melon wrote: > What is needed, seriously needed right now, is some good, open source > surveillance dectection software. Something that would find key-logger > software or hardware, something that would check your phone line thru > your modem, maybe even could be used as a frequency analyzer with a > usb or serial port "antenna" connection for laptops. > I'm sure this would be a really good commercial hit. > Especially if the price could be kept under $500. Try more like $50-100k...it will also require specific/special hardware, software alone is not enough. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From a3495 at cotse.com Sat Aug 11 15:50:46 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:50:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages In-Reply-To: <3B74B956.19472.F048D@localhost> References: <3B74B956.19472.F048D@localhost> Message-ID: > Faustine: >> > > I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to >> > > dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security >> > > as a donut- chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone >> > > imbecile. >> > > Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did >> > > you ever stop to think about who's really doing the >> > > hardcore research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? > James A. Donald: >> > To judge by their most recent crypto ballsup, some donut >> > chomping incompetents. >> That's just as inaccurate as condeming everyone who ever worked >> for Microsoft as clueless because of their corporate propensity >> for security lapses. You wouldn't go that far, would you? > Microsoft, as a whole, is incompetent at security. All > supposedly secure software coming out of Microsoft varies from > poor to worthless. Does anyone doubt it? They take standard > well known methods and make well known bungles in applying it and > customizing it. Sure, but that doesn't mean the individual people working there are incompentent. It's an institutional problem. > We do not get to see much of the spook output. What we have seen > in recent years is not good. That's not by accident--they have zero incentive to show their true hand and every reason to hide it. For example, if someone from the NSA were to crack PGP, do you think they'd public-mindedly post the vulnerability on Bugtraq and have a big IRC coffee klatch to work on a fix? Hell no. There's no telling how many vulnerabilities in common software government security analysts found and kept secret. And the lousy thing is we all know it only takes one. Another one of their advantages is a fairly straightforward intelligence asymmetry: you have no clue as to who these people are and what they can do, whereas they can go over everything about you with a fine tooth comb at their leisure. People help them and don't even know it: the easiest way to get free security testing is to declare a government system secure, honeypot and fishbowl it to Kingdom Come, and wait for the free data to come rolling in from the too-smart-for-their-own-good suckers who can't wait to broadcast to the world exactly in excruciating detail how they "r00ted the Fedz". Everyone laughs and gloats at how insecure government systems are, but they didn't gain a thing, since all the truly interesting data was far, far away. And the veritable icing on the cake is that the feds turn around and use the very intrusions they invited as a tool to scare the Solid Citizens in Congress into allocating even more money and resources "to protect national security". Depressing. > During world war II the government sucked up all the best people > from the open sector, and put them to work in the secret sector. > For example most of the words greatest scientists wound up hand > making nuclear weapons. However, one would expect, with the > passage of time, that people who work in secret would suffer from > Parkinson's law, and this appears to be happening. Maybe. But some of those very same people are still around and sharper than ever. Never underestimate the old guys. > Microsoft produces crap security because most of their customers > do not know any better. Therefore NSA will produce crap security > because their customers are forbidden to know any better. Well, I'm not ruling that out. But since none of us knows the first thing about what's happening behind the Silicon Curtain, that remains to be seen. ~Faustine. From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 16:55:08 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:55:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS] In-Reply-To: <200108092223.f79MNM513113@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > I agree with your sentiments, but not where I think you are going with > this. > > Importantly, there is nothing in the Constitution about "memories" have > special protection. There is "secure in one's papers and possessions," > there is language about under what conditions a person may be compelled > to testify, but there is no special protection or language about > "memories." As usual, mis-represent.... memories == person Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 16:59:03 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:59:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Infinity Bugs--A new can of worms? In-Reply-To: <200108101640.f7AGeGY18255@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > The "infinity bug" is alleged to be a device rendering any telephone, > even one on-hook, capable of transmitting audio to a listener. Whether > it's real is not the point. A radio transmitter connected to the microphone of a phone is not the least bit technologicaly straining. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 17:07:17 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 19:07:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Mixmaster Message Drops In-Reply-To: <004b01c122af$8e12c320$8ac1b6c7@josephas> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > Actually you can start with just one trusted remailer. Bull. > If you can get in an personally inspect 1 remailer, or run it yourself, you > can trust a single one. Only so long as you have a process to vet its current behabiour against past behaviour. As to remailers you don't operate, you're trust with respect to 'getting in' lasts until you walk out. Once you're gone the potential for re-config'ing the remailer is present. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From drevil at sidereal.kz Sat Aug 11 12:18:32 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 11 Aug 2001 19:18:32 -0000 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <3B750025.14650.93664@localhost> (jamesd@echeque.com) References: <200108091738.f79Hc2510280@slack.lne.com> <3B750025.14650.93664@localhost> Message-ID: <20010811191832.20464.qmail@sidereal.kz> Why are we talking about this? There are dozens of websites and books that cover all of this. It is boring. It is pointless. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sat Aug 11 10:33:53 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 19:33:53 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > You need something to start the detonation. It's back to nitrates and > fulminates. (Mercury fulminate is the thing to weed out idiots -- easy Or organic peroxides. Whether acetone or hexamethylenetetramine. > to make, sensitive as hell, and releases mercury, which of course is > neurotoxic.) Fulminate, azide, acetylide, picrate, many heavy metal salts will do. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org Sat Aug 11 16:42:23 2001 From: anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org (An Metet) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 19:42:23 -0400 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS Message-ID: <60c5f417129de6a95b251d4296bba99d@freedom.gmsociety.org> Evil whined: >> Ditto, and it can be used to mischaracterize the list and participants. > > Well put. Whenever a reporter needs to do a story about c'punks he'll > look at the archive and see this huge thread of idiotic posts about > bombs, and he'll say, "Yup, I thought so. Violent anti-government > terrorist wannabes." At a rational level, that isn't true; c'punks > aren't violent anti-government terrorist wannabes. But at a > psychological or emotional level, that's what it would look like to an > outsider. And it's boring. Speak for yourself, dude. Weapons discussions have always been a part of cypherpunks since the beginning. Check the archives. You don't bombs and guns, start your own list. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 11 17:49:22 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 19:49:22 -0500 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010811125421.02aedb70@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: Reese wrote: > I held my tongue, but enough: > > At 10:22 AM 8/11/01, Aimee Farr wrote: [deleted stuff that Dr. Evil said] > >Ditto, and it can be used to mischaracterize the list and participants. > > 1 vote for moderation, check. Crossing the street to get to the other > side can be mischaracterized. So can using a toilet properly and then > flushing afterwards. > >Should some continue to persist, they might notice a sudden, and sharp > >influx of new female personalities discussing.... > > poontang? here? where? I should know better by now. > >-interior decorating tips > >-personal hygiene > >-manicures & hair styles > >-the new official colors for 2001 > > > >...and so on, and etc. > > Check the archives Aimee, look for crossposts between cypherpunks > and the rhizome-raw list (oh, about 18-24 months ago, wild guess). No thanks. I know enough of the archives.... I retract my weak threat. > Do you think a group of happy-clappy homemakers can do better? They can measure and follow recipes. From drevil at sidereal.kz Sat Aug 11 13:46:20 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 11 Aug 2001 20:46:20 -0000 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20010811204620.31995.qmail@sidereal.kz> > Ditto, and it can be used to mischaracterize the list and participants. Well put. Whenever a reporter needs to do a story about c'punks he'll look at the archive and see this huge thread of idiotic posts about bombs, and he'll say, "Yup, I thought so. Violent anti-government terrorist wannabes." At a rational level, that isn't true; c'punks aren't violent anti-government terrorist wannabes. But at a psychological or emotional level, that's what it would look like to an outsider. And it's boring. > Should some continue to persist, they might notice a sudden, and > sharp influx of new female personalities discussing.... > > -interior decorating tips > -personal hygiene > -manicures & hair styles > -the new official colors for 2001 Hey that is a lot more interesting than talking about bombs. At least styles change, and have something to do with aesthetics. Bomb stuff is just the same boring old stuff, and it looks ugly. From lily1217 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 11 21:49:28 2001 From: lily1217 at hotmail.com (forgot password) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 21:49:28 -0700 Subject: hello...i applied for your job... Message-ID: Hello. My name is Olga Dunayev and I applied for your job like 2 weeks ago and I payed with a money order, and I was wondering why I never started the job. Wasn't I suppose to start with the job right away? My home adress is 1769 Paso Real Ave. Rowland Heights, Ca. 91748. Please write to me and tell me why I never started. Thank you very much. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 662 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 19:58:44 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 21:58:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: Re: Mixmaster Message Drops In-Reply-To: <007e01c122b3$03819980$8ac1b6c7@josephas> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote: > > > > > Actually you can start with just one trusted remailer. > > > > Bull. > > Well technically you begin by granting trust to someone, the easiest being > yourself. Then you build trust in something else, use trust in one thing to > build trust in another. Regardless you have to establish trust in a single > location, before you can build trust in multiple. The point is that one remailer isn't sufficient (especially if you've got some sort of fixed latency, which is pretty much a given even if the window is 24 hours). Assume a single remailer. Both input and output stream are sampled. We must assume that the from: and to: are observable. To deny the from: implies a secondary anonymizing layer, contrary to our intial assertion. To deny to: implies that there is an additional layer between the last remailer and the recipient of the traffic. The goal of a remailer is to break the connection between a given incoming and a given out-going (ie mix the to:/from: relation) - not to hide either necessarily. So, even if we generate cover traffic a comparison of all outgoing with each incoming is clearly realizable using modest resources (not including the tap itself). As long as your sample window around each from: event is greater than the latency, you'll find a statistical correlation to the to: event. It takes at least two remailers and they must in addition talk with a shared keyset different than either from: or to: might use to encrypt the body. Now, let's talk about that cover traffic for a moment... It's random, so subsequent comparisons based around to: or from: events will cancel out because they won't be repeated often enough. There is the additional question of just exactly who we're sending that cover traffic to since we're the only remailer. In addition there is the problem of exactly how we produce all that bogus traffic. My suggestion is keep a steady flow of messages (ie #msg/t >= C, dmsg#/dt = 0) to a well known set of addresses (remailers of course) and then randomly replace the bogus traffic with real traffic in a round robin selection process. Any real-world realizible system requires(!) at least two remailers who are not(!) in collusion with each other, and they must share a different set of keys than either to: or from: might use. The only workable solution to that, which doesn't involve 'trust' per se, is to move to a distributed environment with autonomous process execution. There is of course a discussion of self-sufficiency w/ respect to e-cash schemes in here, but that's a different topic. Additionaly there is the Plan 9 process bidding mechanism that fits in here as well. Then you request a image of that program (which is running other images elsewhere) to run in your own process space. You can verify the signature of the image by comparing it to known good signatures (and the algorithm they were used). This way each image of the program gets 'paid' for by being run by the user directly (though they have zero control over its environment mind you - excepting hacking the process mechanism in the OS - which recurses to the remailer getting a signature of the OS and itself to verify it hasn't been hacked. Some nifty problem/solution sets in here). You could of course do this today with the existing mix-masters to a certain extent. Linux would of course be a good example, though from a image used - signature perspective MS would be more stable with all the custom Linux kernel compiles (and over 180 distro's). (If any of these ideas are patentable then I put them in the public domain) -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 11 22:56:45 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 22:56:45 -0700 Subject: Stem Cell Speech? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108120556.f7C5uoB26605@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 11, 2001, at 10:41 PM, Matthew Gaylor wrote: > [Charles Platt is senior writer for WIRED Magazine and an author and > former science fiction editor when he's not enjoying his "retirement" > in northern Arizona. I don't know the answer to Charles' question, but > perhaps my distinguished readers will?] > > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:10:52 -0400 (EDT) > From: Charles Platt > To: Matthew Gaylor > Cc: > Subject: stem cell speech > > Matt, I am baffled that I have not read, anywhere, a suggestion from > anyone that George Bush has no constitutional right to set science > policy. > His speech on stem cell research included a statement that he had > decided > to proceed cautiously. How does he have the right to make such a > decision? > Will there be an executive order? The Bush statements are about _federal funding_ of stem cell research. Private actors are free to do research as they see fit. --Tim May From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Sat Aug 11 14:01:24 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (ENSE-CUR) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:01:24 +0200 Subject: publi.desarrollo.cursos Message-ID: <200108112118.QAA18348@einstein.ssz.com> 8.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia COFOR-Gestion Integral.1.SL Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. Con amplias indicaciones sobre bolsa de trabajo salidas laborales ect. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas(El dia 16.de Agosto Inaguramos la web).No lo piense mas y envie un e-mail y recibira todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve,estos cursos suponen una inteligente INVERSION POR SU PARTE. Envie e-mail: cofor_b at wanadoo.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUR.MEDI at terra.es Jose Navarro Broker-COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL Isaac Albeniz 16. 30009-MURCIA España ------------------ From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Sat Aug 11 14:01:26 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (ENSE-CUR) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:01:26 +0200 Subject: publi.desarrollo.cursos Message-ID: <200108112119.QAA18357@einstein.ssz.com> 8.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia COFOR-Gestion Integral.1.SL Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. Con amplias indicaciones sobre bolsa de trabajo salidas laborales ect. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas(El dia 16.de Agosto Inaguramos la web).No lo piense mas y envie un e-mail y recibira todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve,estos cursos suponen una inteligente INVERSION POR SU PARTE. Envie e-mail: cofor_b at wanadoo.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUR.MEDI at terra.es Jose Navarro Broker-COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL Isaac Albeniz 16. 30009-MURCIA España ------------------ From dist.200.c at wanadoo.es Sat Aug 11 14:01:26 2001 From: dist.200.c at wanadoo.es (ENSE-CUR) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:01:26 +0200 Subject: publi.desarrollo.cursos Message-ID: <200108112057.NAA22950@ecotone.toad.com> 8.8.2001.Publicidad/Enseñanza a Distancia COFOR-Gestion Integral.1.SL Hola que tal: El motivo de la presente carta es informarte de la posibilidad de poder realizar algún curso a distancia de tu interés, cursos relacionados con tu trabajo inquietudes y ocio.ect.El conocimiento es el mayor patrimonio de que podemos disponer. Nos dedicamos desde 1996.a impartir cursos a distancia disponemos de una amplia variedad de cursos sencillos para poder seguirlos comodamente desde cualquier parte del mundo y a unos precios muy competitivos. Con amplias indicaciones sobre bolsa de trabajo salidas laborales ect. NET ------------ Redes y Sistemas Sistemas Servers Diseño Web BUSSINES ------------ Gestion Comercial y Marketing Relaciones Publicas Recursos Humanos Comercio Exterior Direccion Comercial Gestión Medio Ambiental SALUD SUPERACION PERSONAL ------------------------------------- Psicoterapia Psicologia Practica Nutrí terapia y Salud Monitor Yoga Tai-Chi Hipnoterapia Quiromasaje y Reflexoterapia Aromaterapia Cosmética Natural Hierbas Medicinales -------------------------------------- CURSOS BECADOS: Los cursos son de 200.horas lectivas el precio standar por curso es de 35.000.pts(Despues de beca)España a plazos.Iberoamerica 150.usa dolar aplazados.(Despues de beca) El Diploma: "Técnico Especialista" El tiempo aproximado por curso dependiendo de los conocimientos en areas similares de que se disponga,es entre 2-6.meses.aprox. Si desean que les ampliemos información pueden enviar un e-mail les contestaremos con la mayor brevedad y les indicaremos nuestro espacio web que se encuentra en reformas(El dia 16.de Agosto Inaguramos la web).No lo piense mas y envie un e-mail y recibira todo tipo de informes y detalles muy en breve,estos cursos suponen una inteligente INVERSION POR SU PARTE. Envie e-mail: cofor_b at wanadoo.es Sin otra que rogarte me envies un e-mail si estas interesado/a Te enviamos un saludo. Si desea no recibir mas e-mail. remove/mail CUR.MEDI at terra.es Jose Navarro Broker-COFOR Gestion Integral 1.SL Isaac Albeniz 16. 30009-MURCIA España ------------------ From measl at mfn.org Sat Aug 11 21:23:35 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:23:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010811125421.02aedb70@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Reese wrote: > Check the archives Aimee, look for crossposts between cypherpunks > and the rhizome-raw list (oh, about 18-24 months ago, wild guess). What ever happened to rhizome anyway? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 21:26:09 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:26:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Famous Stanford Spy Camera In-Reply-To: <550a37bed1715980efd0b1a8713152d4@remailer.segfault.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Anonymous Coredump wrote: > The camera was installed for the World Cup a few years back. It is > remotely controlled and is used to zoom in on faces at great > distances. During the World Cup, the faces of fans were fed to a > bullpen of representatives of "anti-terrorism" organizations from > around the world. So far as I know, no computer recognition was used, > but the effect is the same. But the process isn't, and that is the primary point. The ends do not justify the means. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From blancw at cnw.com Sat Aug 11 23:38:42 2001 From: blancw at cnw.com (Blanc) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:38:42 -0700 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS Message-ID: I once created an explosive in the kitchen: I didn't tighten the lid securely on a pressure-cooker (I think I was cooking beans). The eventual burst and the slam of the lid against the ceiling was . . . startlingly surprising. No damage, but certainly loud and alarming. Good recipe for a dinner disaster. .. Blanc From measl at mfn.org Sat Aug 11 21:46:43 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 23:46:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > 232.6 billion operations a second still looks fairly impressive to me. > > ~Faustine. Cryptographically speaking, *yawn*. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 11 22:10:02 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 00:10:02 -0500 Subject: BOMB *SPEECH* In-Reply-To: <20010811053600.11774.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of Secret Squirrel > > Why is everyone pussyfooting around the bomb plan thing No "bomb plans" in here. I never got the idea there was "a plan," It's so-called "bomb speech," and controversy has raised to the status of metaphor for the First Amendment -- a form of online, nonviolent protest on free speech restrictions. > all the time? Why doesn't one of the lawyers on the list, Thanks for volunteering me, Secret Squirrel. But, no thanks, I pay attention to details. > or somebody like Tim, who can afford a good lawyer, just > start a daily posting of pages from one of those CIA > manuals that Loompanics or whoever sells, with all > the explosive and incendiary formulas? What possible > charge could the trolling LEO's make? Stupidity. The thing about stupidity is that it can give people the justification to find something "smart," or somebody else "smarter." Here is "842" --- I assume this is what everybody is talking about? ------------ (2) Prohibition. - It shall be unlawful for any person - (A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or (B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence. ----- Legality? Can they make the intent stick? I dunno, I'm not a "bomb lawyer." I would imagine mailing lists lend themselves to conspiracy. Do you ever "conspire?" Criminal lawyers tell me that's bad. BTW, have there been any ..."conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest" in here? Ever? What about "malicious mischief?" Some of you sound awful mischievous to me..... Any indications that anybody in here is engaged in the "unlawful use of explosives?" Oh, I'll just Google it up. I forget. How convenient. ~Aimee From ravage at ssz.com Sat Aug 11 23:01:38 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:01:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Stem Cell Speech? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote: > [Charles Platt is senior writer for WIRED Magazine and an author and > former science fiction editor when he's not enjoying his "retirement" > in northern Arizona. I don't know the answer to Charles' question, > but perhaps my distinguished readers will?] > > Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:10:52 -0400 (EDT) > From: Charles Platt > To: Matthew Gaylor > Cc: > Subject: stem cell speech > > Matt, I am baffled that I have not read, anywhere, a suggestion from > anyone that George Bush has no constitutional right to set science policy. I have, for many years. Check the archives. I've also claimed that strictly speaking the Air Force, NASA, NSF, NOAA, etc. are actually unconstitutional. Why? Because the 10th requires some sort of deligate (at least a sentence fragment) in the Constitution for all laws. And there ain't one for any of these efforts. [Note: I also do not suggest they be shutdown, only that a discussion of existance and suitable amendments be created. Especially NASA, I believe strongly that a federaly mandated support level via amendment is in their best interest. At least they'd have a guaranteed minimum. ] -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From cp at panix.com Sat Aug 11 22:10:52 2001 From: cp at panix.com (Charles Platt) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:10:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: stem cell speech Message-ID: Matt, I am baffled that I have not read, anywhere, a suggestion from anyone that George Bush has no constitutional right to set science policy. His speech on stem cell research included a statement that he had decided to proceed cautiously. How does he have the right to make such a decision? Will there be an executive order? This in turn raises the question of how Congress has any right to tell parents what they may or may not do with their zygotes. Control of federal funding is one thing; but I sense a desire to go beyond that, and pass legislation similar to the anti-cloning act which seems destined to become law. Where's the constitutional excuse for this? In the tired old Interstate Commerce Clause? I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, so I may have missed something here. But what troubles me the most is that I have seen no commentators or op/ed writers raising the basic issue of control. Maybe I just don't read the right news sources--or maybe everyone has become so accustomed to centralized authority, extending all the way down to our own genes, the spectacle of a president determining science policy rouses no surprise. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From declan at well.com Sat Aug 11 22:33:02 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:33:02 -0400 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3B74B956.19472.F048D@localhost>; from jamesd@echeque.com on Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:49:26AM -0700 References: <3B71DB0A.15148.B9E4F9@localhost> <3B74B956.19472.F048D@localhost> Message-ID: <20010812013301.A28951@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 04:49:26AM -0700, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > I would bet on it in the long run. It is inherent in the nature > of government. Without the market weeding out the unfit and > pressuring everyone for excellence, bureaucracies unavoidably > decay for well known reasons. In the long run, perhaps. But it is dangerous to underestimate the strength and determination of an adversary that has perhaps $1 trillion (in the U.S. alone) in resources to draw on. Dying elephants can cause violent disruptions on their way down. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 11 22:38:37 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:38:37 -0400 Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR In-Reply-To: ; from ptrei@rsasecurity.com on Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 01:28:20PM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20010812013837.B28951@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 01:28:20PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > I think text is the wrong approach. Put up some pictures, > and a question - 'Click on the white bunny' 'Click on the > chipmunk' 'Click on the Russian icon'. 'Click on the clowns nose' > 'Click on the clown's right hand' > > Taking text, which is explicitly designed to be readable, and > trying to find a degree of distortion which is human (but not machine) > readable is probably a bad approach. Try something a 6 year old > can do, but which is still a PhD thesis problem for computers. I had thoughts along a similar line as Peter's, except to use numbers. Include with tags some .GIFs and ask the person/bot to type in the numbers in the GIFs. Generate the filenames randomly and expire them after five minutes. Should take you 10 minutes to write a prototype CGI script in Perl. -Declan From freematt at coil.com Sat Aug 11 22:41:09 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:41:09 -0400 Subject: Stem Cell Speech? Message-ID: [Charles Platt is senior writer for WIRED Magazine and an author and former science fiction editor when he's not enjoying his "retirement" in northern Arizona. I don't know the answer to Charles' question, but perhaps my distinguished readers will?] From declan at well.com Sat Aug 11 22:41:27 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:41:27 -0400 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: <20010811204620.31995.qmail@sidereal.kz>; from drevil@sidereal.kz on Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:46:20PM -0000 References: <20010811204620.31995.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <20010812014127.C28951@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 08:46:20PM -0000, Dr. Evil wrote: > Well put. Whenever a reporter needs to do a story about c'punks he'll > look at the archive and see this huge thread of idiotic posts about > bombs, and he'll say, "Yup, I thought so. Violent anti-government > terrorist wannabes." At a rational level, that isn't true; c'punks The thread is only about 15 posts so far. And there have been similar threads for the better part of a decade. Trying to discourage them is not exactly going to work. > Hey that is a lot more interesting than talking about bombs. At least > styles change, and have something to do with aesthetics. Bomb stuff > is just the same boring old stuff, and it looks ugly. Heck, you could say the same thing about "cryptoanarchy wrecking the tax system" or "anonymous remailers would let terrorists communicate with impunity." -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 11 22:44:29 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:44:29 -0400 Subject: RE BOMB PLANS In-Reply-To: ; from Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de on Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 05:24:22PM +0200 References: <200108101430.f7AEUXY17230@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010812014429.D28951@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 05:24:22PM +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: > IANAL, can this be used as a pretense to shut the list down? It would be difficult to shut down the list if it could resume as "cryptopunks" or something on someone else's server or a Usenet newsgroup. I see it (this is not a close analog, but I like it) as a bunch of people discussing stuff in a public park. Do you shut down the park, or the park's speaker corner, because of some alleged bad actors? Besides, discussions about bomb making, Feinstein's attempts notwithstanding, are presumptively legal in the U.S. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 11 22:53:32 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:53:32 -0400 Subject: It's DMCA, stupid (was Re: Child Porn - The Lies of Ashcroft) In-Reply-To: <69f8e65cebd5b093faaeff489cc9d197@generalprotectionfault.ne t >; from nobody@generalprotectionfault.net on Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 02:21:11AM -0500 References: <69f8e65cebd5b093faaeff489cc9d197@generalprotectionfault.net > Message-ID: <20010812015331.E28951@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 02:21:11AM -0500, Anonimo Arancio wrote: > > >This works very well. Most sheeple will automagically condemn "child porn" (that is recording visible-light illuminated genitals of humans of various ages below government-sanctioned limit and displaying them.) US Government owns the copyright to penises and vaginas of all its subjects and will diligently pursue all infringements. The phrase is "lascivious exhibition of the genitals." If I recall properly, courts have stretched that phrase to include as child pornography videotapes of clothed girls in leotards. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 11 23:03:31 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 02:03:31 -0400 Subject: Currently on alt.politics.org.cia there are some interesting discussions ... In-Reply-To: ; from cryptomjs@eudoramail.com on Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 12:00:19PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010812020331.F28951@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 12:00:19PM -0700, Mark Saarelainen wrote: > USENET: alt.politics.org.cia > > Basically, these are pertaining to brain wavelets and how electromagnetic beaming technologies with remote sensing capabilities can detect wavelets and how wavelets can be communicated to a subject's mind. Ah, thanks for the very useful tip. I'll jump right on it. While you're at it, perhaps you could summarize recent discussions that took place on the newsgroup, paying particular attention to the orbital mind control lasers. -Declan From morlockelloi at yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 04:47:07 2001 From: morlockelloi at yahoo.com (Morlock Elloi) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: young warrior courses Message-ID: <20010812114707.19954.qmail@web13208.mail.yahoo.com> 15:26 2001-08-10 DMITRY SKLYAROV: CHIPS SERVED FOR LUNCH IN AMERICAN JAIL Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov is comparing the condition in American jails with the building group or young warrior courses. "One can't intimidate us with American jail!",- said Sklyarov. >From the time of his arrest on July 16, 2001 the programmer managed to stay in 4 jails - in Las Vegas (Nevada), Oklahoma (Oklahoma), Santa Clair and finally San Jose (California). In Sklyarov's words, the conditions of American penitentiaries are similar to the works Sklyarov had to do in the building group during his student summer holidays or they reminded young warrior courses in the army. Sklyarov surely said he had to adjust himself like for example breakfast in the San Jose jail was served at 4 a.m. in the morning, lunch - at 11 a.m. and dinner - at 5 p.m. For his lunch Dmitry had chips (14 grams), 2 pieces of bread with sausage, some other little things and something to drink. "It is allowed to buy food with your own money if you have any", - Sklyarov said. If you wish you can work in the jail getting 18 cents per hour, RIA Novosti informed. There were 60 people in the cell of the Las Vegas jail where Dmitry Sklyarov was: the people on trial and those who will have to face the court in the future. The people were sleeping on two-level bunks, the attitude between the people was sympathetic and understanding. One of Sklyarovms cell-mates told him the state was paying $300 daily for each person in jail. Sklyarov is optimistic about the things that happened to him, he is still hopeful he will soon see his family. The office of the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco renders him some help in this respect. The session devoted to Dmitry Sklyarovms pending case will take place August 23 in San Jose. The courtms decision will show if the case is over or is going to develop. Dmitry Sklyarov was released on bail with an obligation not to leave the territory of North California until there is the final decision made on his case. He visited the Russian Federation Consulate General in San Francisco on Thursday. Sklyarov arrived at the office with 2 lawyers. They warned their client to withhold any comments to the media until the court session takes place August 23. http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/08/10/12241.html ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From nobody at mix.winterorbit.com Sat Aug 11 23:05:57 2001 From: nobody at mix.winterorbit.com (Anonymous) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 08:05:57 +0200 Subject: Mixmaster Checksums Message-ID: <20875defa8942751757cd11f357735d2@mix.winterorbit.com> The latest mixmaster sources are not signed. Are these checksums right? mix-libs-2.9b8.tar.gz Length: 1515625 bytes SHA1: c166dc0e 9aa6d492 54448332 1bf74724 0deb9b87 MD5: 72b4b9b9 b356017d d34a9eb0 36090075 mix-2.9b23.tar.gz Length: 376334 bytes SHA1: 492499a4 26e91444 ed8c4549 83f38ec6 a3f84854 MD5: ca4e402b ff488b90 93807939 14769220 From roy at scytale.com Sun Aug 12 07:26:28 2001 From: roy at scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 09:26:28 -0500 Subject: Connectivity test Message-ID: <3B764BC4.11579.9A3C73C@localhost> Apologies for the noise, but I seem to be having problems with the lne node. Could someone reply offlist and confirm this message got out? Thanks. I'll shut up now. :) -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Key 0x1AF39331 : 71D5 2EA2 4C27 D569 D96B BD40 D926 C05E Key available from pubkey at scytale.com I charge to process unsolicited commercial email From roy at scytale.com Sun Aug 12 08:02:33 2001 From: roy at scytale.com (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 10:02:33 -0500 Subject: Any problems with LNE? Message-ID: <3B765439.9039.9C4CA76@localhost> Is anyone else having problems with the LNE node? It could just be me, but I can't seem to get any response from majordomo at lne.com and I haven't seen any traffic from that node in days. Apologies for the noise. Replies offlist, please. -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Key 0x1AF39331 : 71D5 2EA2 4C27 D569 D96B BD40 D926 C05E Key available from pubkey at scytale.com I charge to process unsolicited commercial email From ravage at ssz.com Sun Aug 12 09:15:02 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 11:15:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: (LNE) Majordomo results (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 09:02:29 -0700 From: Majordomo at lne.com To: ravage at einstein.ssz.com Subject: Majordomo results -- >>>> info **** info: unknown list ''. >>>> >>>> >>>> **** Help for Majordomo at lne.com: This help message is being sent to you from the Majordomo mailing list management system at Majordomo at lne.com. If you're familiar with mail servers, an advanced user's summary of Majordomo's commands appears at the end of this message. Majordomo is an automated system which allows users to subscribe and unsubscribe to mailing lists, and to retrieve files from list archives. You can interact with the Majordomo software by sending it commands in the body of mail messages addressed to "Majordomo at lne.com". Please do not put your commands on the subject line; Majordomo does not process commands in the subject line. You may put multiple Majordomo commands in the same mail message. Put each command on a line by itself. If you use a "signature block" at the end of your mail, Majordomo may mistakenly believe each line of your message is a command; you will then receive spurious error messages. To keep this from happening, either put a line starting with a hyphen ("-") before your signature, or put a line with just the word end on it in the same place. This will stop the Majordomo software from processing your signature as bad commands. Here are some of the things you can do using Majordomo: I. Get information about a list. Use the command info demo-list in the body of the mail message to get information about a list. II. SUBSCRIBING TO A LIST Once you've determined that you wish to subscribe to one or more lists on this system, you can send commands to Majordomo to have it add you to the list, so you can begin receiving mailings. To receive list mail at the address from which you're sending your mail, simply say "subscribe" followed by the list's name: subscribe demo-list If for some reason you wish to have the mailings go to a different address (a friend's address, a specific other system on which you have an account, or an address which is more correct than the one that automatically appears in the "From:" header on the mail you send), you would add that address to the command. For instance, if you're sending a request from your work account, but wish to receive "demo-list" mail at your personal account (for which we will use "jqpublic at my-isp.com" as an example), you'd put the line subscribe demo-list jqpublic at my-isp.com in the mail message body. Based on configuration decisions made by the list owners, you may be added to the mailing list automatically. You may also receive notification that an authorization key is required for subscription. Another message will be sent to the address to be subscribed (which may or may not be the same as yours) containing the key, and directing the user to send a command found in that message back to Majordomo at lne.com. (This can be a bit of extra hassle, but it helps keep you from being swamped in extra email by someone who forged requests from your address.) You may also get a message that your subscription is being forwarded to the list owner for approval; some lists have waiting lists, or policies about who may subscribe. If your request is forwarded for approval, the list owner should contact you soon after your request. Upon subscribing, you should receive an introductory message, containing list policies and features. Save this message for future reference; it will also contain exact directions for unsubscribing. If you lose the intro mail and would like another copy of the policies, send this message to Majordomo at lne.com: intro demo-list (substituting, of course, the real name of your list for "demo-list"). III. UNSUBSCRIBING FROM MAILING LISTS Your original intro message contains the exact command which should be used to remove your address from the list. However, in most cases, you may simply send the command "unsubscribe" followed by the list name: unsubscribe demo-list (This command may fail if your provider has changed the way your address is shown in your mail.) To remove an address other than the one from which you're sending the request, give that address in the command: unsubscribe demo-list jqpublic at my-isp.com In either of these cases, you can tell Majordomo at lne.com to remove the address in question from all lists on this server by using "*" in place of the list name: unsubscribe * unsubscribe * jqpublic at my-isp.com VI. RETRIEVING FILES FROM A LIST'S ARCHIVES Many list owners keep archives of files associated with a list. These may include: - back issues of the list - help files, user profiles, and other documents associated with the list - daily, monthly, or yearly archives for the list To find out if a list has any files associated with it, use the "index" command: index demo-list If you see files in which you're interested, you may retrieve them by using the "get" command and specifying the list name and archive filename. For instance, to retrieve the files called "profile.form" (presumably a form to fill out with your profile) and "demo-list.9611" (presumably the messages posted to the list in November 1996), you would put the lines get demo-list profile.form get demo-list demo-list.9611 in your mail to Majordomo at lne.com. VII. GETTING MORE HELP To contact a human site manager, send mail to Majordomo-Owner at lne.com. To contact the owner of a specific list, send mail to that list's approval address, which is formed by adding "-approval" to the user-name portion of the list's address. For instance, to contact the list owner for demo-list at lne.com, you would send mail to demo-list-approval at lne.com. To get another copy of this help message, send mail to Majordomo at lne.com with a line saying help in the message body. VIII. COMMAND SUMMARY FOR ADVANCED USERS In the description below items contained in []'s are optional. When providing the item, do not include the []'s around it. Items in angle brackets, such as
, are meta-symbols that should be replaced by appropriate text without the angle brackets. It understands the following commands: subscribe [
] Subscribe yourself (or
if specified) to the named . unsubscribe [
] Unsubscribe yourself (or
if specified) from the named . "unsubscribe *" will remove you (or
) from all lists. This _may not_ work if you have subscribed using multiple addresses. get Get a file related to . index Return an index of files you can "get" for . info Retrieve the general introductory information for the named . intro Retrieve the introductory message sent to new users. Non-subscribers may not be able to retrieve this. help Retrieve this message. end Stop processing commands (useful if your mailer adds a signature). Commands should be sent in the body of an email message to "Majordomo at lne.com". Multiple commands can be processed provided each occurs on a separate line. Commands in the "Subject:" line are NOT processed. If you have any questions or problems, please contact "Majordomo-Owner at lne.com". From rsw at mit.edu Sun Aug 12 09:20:38 2001 From: rsw at mit.edu (Riad S. Wahby) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 12:20:38 -0400 Subject: Linearized computations - was OCR In-Reply-To: <20010812013837.B28951@cluebot.com>; from declan@well.com on Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 01:38:37AM -0400 References: <20010812013837.B28951@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010812122038.A19979@positron.mit.edu> Declan McCullagh wrote: > I had thoughts along a similar line as Peter's, except to use numbers. > Include with tags some .GIFs and ask the person/bot to type in > the numbers in the GIFs. Generate the filenames randomly and expire > them after five minutes. Should take you 10 minutes to write a > prototype CGI script in Perl. This is done somewhere already. I can't quite remember where, but I suspect that it's in the EBay registration process. "For security purposes, retype the numbers to the left." The numbers aren't vertically aligned, have erratic horizontal spacing, and are presented against a grid-pattern background. I'm not sure if this actually helps much against standard OCR, although I'm pretty sure that the SVMs I work with could be easily trained to translate the GIFs to text. -- Riad Wahby rsw at mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 From declan at well.com Sun Aug 12 09:42:17 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 12:42:17 -0400 Subject: Any problems with LNE? In-Reply-To: <3B765439.9039.9C4CA76@localhost>; from roy@scytale.com on Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 10:02:33AM -0500 References: <3B765439.9039.9C4CA76@localhost> Message-ID: <20010812124217.A20344@cluebot.com> I'm having problems with the lne.com node. No messages from late Thursday through Saturday evening. Then another halt of about 18 hours until midday Sunday. It's almost like the mail server was just dumping the messages into a queue and not processing them for days at a time. Until the last week, lne has been very reliable. Can anyone explain what's going on? -Declan On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 10:02:33AM -0500, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > Is anyone else having problems with the LNE node? It could just > be me, but I can't seem to get any response from > majordomo at lne.com and I haven't seen any traffic from that node > in days. > > Apologies for the noise. Replies offlist, please. > -- > Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com > DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division > PGP Key 0x1AF39331 : 71D5 2EA2 4C27 D569 D96B BD40 D926 C05E > Key available from pubkey at scytale.com > I charge to process unsolicited commercial email From spoon at soupstone.com Sun Aug 12 12:57:19 2001 From: spoon at soupstone.com (David) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 12:57:19 Subject: Are Your Breasts To Small? Do You Get PMS? Distributors Wanted for this 4 Tier MLM .... Lets Play Wanna Be a Millionare By Your Own Hand Message-ID: <200108121637.JAA26583@ecotone.toad.com> See the bottom of this e-mail if you wish to be a distributor Natural Breast Enlargement Can Happen for You.... IT'S TRUE, tens of thousands of women now have experienced an increase of 1-2 cup sizes and 1-4 inches to their bustline using BUST PLUS all natural breast enhancement herbal suppliments! http://www.soupstone.com BUST PLUS is a safe, natural and effective method to increase your bust line and decrease PMS and menstrual symptoms. It was developed by the world famous herbalist Angela Harris. http://www.soupstone.com What is BUST PLUS? BUST PLUS is a unique, all-natural formula containing a proprietary combination of 9 herbs traditionally used for natural female hormone balancing and promotion of breast size and firmness. Bust Plus is recognized for its results of larger and fuller breasts for the women who use it. Does BUST PLUS Really Work? Yes, BUST PLUS really does work. After two years of studies and thousands of testimonials, we can very confidently say "YES" the product does indeed work. How long does it take to see results? Studies indicate that 50% of women see growth in the first month, 72% in two months, and over 80% of women noticed breast growth after three months of use. http://www.soupstone.com Oh yeah and my favorite tale. an end to PMS!!! My name is David Fuchs and let me recount my PMS tale. My girl friend is the sweetest person on the planet. Except for 2-4 days a month when she has PMS and then she becomes a different person. I have the scars to prove it. Her specialty when she has PMS is throwing things at me, books, plates, glasses, etc. Five months ago I did some research on the internet and found BUST PLUS. After the first month there was a small change. I didnt get hit by any flying objects. After the second month she was a little grumpy with PMS but nothing like before. After the third month I didnt even notice that she had PMS. I cant believe The difference. The forth month she chased me around my apartment throwing stuff at me again ... her bra's... you see she made me pay for the 2 cup size increase she achieved while using BUST PLUS. http://www.soupstone.com This Message Was Forwarded To You By the tell a friend server, by NO NAME ENTERED at http://www.soupstone.com If you wish to be removed from 800+ bulk e-mailers and bulk email suppliers reply to Remove at soupstone.com with remove in the subject line If you would like to become a supplier of BUST PLUS Please email mlm at soupstone.com . This is a 4 tier Multi Level Marketing Company that gives you a percentage of the sales from the people you bring in below you. This requires no purchases. 20% of the 2,500,000 millionares on the planet are result of multi level marketing. This is a ground floor opportunity. If you have a high traffic site and want to make large sums of money all that is required is a single small (85k) banner for sales and to find suppliers. We will be adding a new product every 2-6 weeks. If you would like to sell BUST PLUS in real life, we offer a free 200 page course on sales and marketing techniques and low cost advertising. All the items David Fuchs and Company marketi are self imporvement product. Diet, Bust enlargement, vitamins. From hseaver at ameritech.net Sun Aug 12 11:18:49 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:18:49 -0500 Subject: Any problems with LNE? References: <3B765439.9039.9C4CA76@localhost> <20010812124217.A20344@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <3B76C882.AE996C78@ameritech.net> I'm getting lne.com okay, and the messages have seemed fairly regular. Declan McCullagh wrote: > I'm having problems with the lne.com node. No messages from late Thursday > through Saturday evening. Then another halt of about 18 hours until midday > Sunday. It's almost like the mail server was just dumping the messages > into a queue and not processing them for days at a time. > > Until the last week, lne has been very reliable. Can anyone explain > what's going on? > > -Declan > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 10:02:33AM -0500, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > > Is anyone else having problems with the LNE node? It could just > > be me, but I can't seem to get any response from > > majordomo at lne.com and I haven't seen any traffic from that node > > in days. > > > > Apologies for the noise. Replies offlist, please. > > -- > > Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com > > DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division > > PGP Key 0x1AF39331 : 71D5 2EA2 4C27 D569 D96B BD40 D926 C05E > > Key available from pubkey at scytale.com > > I charge to process unsolicited commercial email -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Sun Aug 12 13:51:54 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dead Fetuses Cause Traffic Accidents Message-ID: <200108122051.f7CKpt400791@artifact.psychedelic.net> Some prosecutor in Montana has banned pictures of dead fetuses claiming they will cause traffic accidents. Uh, right. ----- GREAT FALLS, Mont. -- A city prosecutor said an anti-abortion group's graphic pictures of mutilated fetuses were a traffic hazard and could not be shown at demonstrations along city streets. Members of Pro-Life Great Falls reluctantly ended their regular Friday demonstration at a Planned Parenthood office when Assistant City Attorney Kory Larsen told them the signs had to go or be confiscated. ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From puki_mbilek at madmail.com Sun Aug 12 07:01:20 2001 From: puki_mbilek at madmail.com (Pippo) Date: 12 Aug 2001 14:01:20 -0000 Subject: ANYONES CREDIT CARD # per your request. Message-ID: <20010812140120.1901.qmail@fiver.freemessage.com> Re: ANYONES CREDIT CARD # per your request. Sign up for your "FREE E-MAIL" @ MADMAIL http://www.madmail.com From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sun Aug 12 12:45:09 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:45:09 -0500 Subject: Is somebody taunting happy fun...? Message-ID: New virus spreads using Acrobat files ~Aimee From bill.stewart at pobox.com Sun Aug 12 15:37:45 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 15:37:45 -0700 Subject: Stem Cell Speech? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010812144450.037b3300@idiom.com> >Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:10:52 -0400 (EDT) >From: Charles Platt >To: Matthew Gaylor >Subject: stem cell speech > >Matt, I am baffled that I have not read, anywhere, a suggestion from >anyone that George Bush has no constitutional right to set science policy. >His speech on stem cell research included a statement that he had decided >to proceed cautiously. How does he have the right to make such a decision? As Tim May pointed out, this isn't an issue of whether to ban the research, it's an issue of whether to provide Federal Funding to pay for the research. But the Feds are setting policy about privately-funded human cloning research, and probably could set policy about embryonic stem cell research if they wanted to. The commerce clause is pretty much infinitely extensible, or they could argue it's Protecting The General Welfare of US homo sapiens, though of course the real issue is "Mah constituents think it's creepy and keep rantin' at me about how Ah'd better do something, so of course Ah'll vote for your bill." The Equal Protection clause would even work, at least until somebody takes it to the Supremes and says that Roe vs. Wade bans Special Rights for Early Americans. You could even stretch the DMCA far enough to cover it - either the embryo or its parents owns copyright on the DNA, and there are technical methods used to protect copying (so the cells only turn into the kinds of body parts they're supposed to), and developing a mechanism to evade that protection is a violation of the DMCA even if the individual copyright owners participating in the research don't mind having their DNA copied. On a more serious note, I hope that any laws and policies they write banning cloning are narrowly limited. Lots of people get upset about cloning *entire* humans, creating a new human being who's a pseudo-twin of the original one, but that's much different from cloning body parts, such as creating a clone of your liver or kidneys to replace the damaged ones. A ban on the latter would be a real tragedy. From bill.stewart at pobox.com Sun Aug 12 16:02:19 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 16:02:19 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants In-Reply-To: References: <88974177e660a0c3e89888dca462bffc@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010812154145.02f71120@idiom.com> At 06:50 PM 08/11/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, A. Melon wrote: > > What is needed, seriously needed right now, is some good, open source > > surveillance dectection software. Something that would find key-logger > > software or hardware, something that would check your phone line thru > > your modem, maybe even could be used as a frequency analyzer with a > > usb or serial port "antenna" connection for laptops. > > I'm sure this would be a really good commercial hit. > > Especially if the price could be kept under $500. > >Try more like $50-100k...it will also require specific/special hardware, >software alone is not enough. It's not a request that makes sense - - you can detect electromagnetic radiation emanating from your house, if you're willing to look at a wide enough range of frequencies and can differentiate from other similar radiation, such as that from your computer or your tv or cabletv or vcr or power line or PDA (if you're not in a single-family home) your neighbors. Costs money, probably too much work, difficult, but semi-possible. = you might be able to detect changes in the analog side of your phone line, at least if they're twiddling it nearby where you can watch them, but they can diguise that by working from a Phone Company truck. You've got no chance of detecting tapping on the digital side. - Neither of these methods will detect equipment that lurks around waiting for commands before transmitting. - It's also difficult to detect elint eavesdropping hardware in your neighbor's place that's pointed at you, especially if you have many neighbors. - It's difficult to detect black-box jobs that add hardware features to your PC; you might see bump-in-the-cord keyloggers, but you probably won't see anything hidden inside the case itself. Epoxying everything together can reduce this risk, and increase the chances that you'll notice, especially if your PC is a laptop that you stick in the safe when you're not using it or carrying it. But you're not that paranoid. - It's difficult to detect software changes - you can discourage them by using a Real Operating System instead of Windows, and running things like Tripwire that detect changes in critical files, and of course making sure that nobody's snuck in and swapped the CDROMs of software you're using for bugged versions so that the next time your hard disk crashes and you need to reinstall Red Hat or Win2001 or applications get hosed and you need to reinstall Palm tools or other apps that you're not getting bugware as well. A much easier approach is to bug your own place - set up your cheap camera pointing toward your PC desk, with that small pc running motion detection and tracking who's been there. Or at least use a burglar alarm that's got some off-site or other reliable mechanism for telling you when you've been burgled. In Nicky Scarfo's case, picking alarm companies is a tough decision - being in a Mafia Watch neighborhood is find for non-players' protection, but players have to worry whether they're being set up by ex-friends... From declan at well.com Sun Aug 12 13:28:41 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 16:28:41 -0400 Subject: Any problems with LNE? In-Reply-To: <20010812124217.A20344@cluebot.com>; from declan@well.com on Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 12:42:17PM -0400 References: <3B765439.9039.9C4CA76@localhost> <20010812124217.A20344@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010812162840.A24859@cluebot.com> Eric was kind enough to write to me with details. It appears to be a localized problem and a fix is underway. --Declan On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 12:42:17PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > I'm having problems with the lne.com node. No messages from late Thursday > through Saturday evening. Then another halt of about 18 hours until midday > Sunday. It's almost like the mail server was just dumping the messages > into a queue and not processing them for days at a time. > > Until the last week, lne has been very reliable. Can anyone explain > what's going on? > > -Declan > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 10:02:33AM -0500, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > > Is anyone else having problems with the LNE node? It could just > > be me, but I can't seem to get any response from > > majordomo at lne.com and I haven't seen any traffic from that node > > in days. > > > > Apologies for the noise. Replies offlist, please. > > -- > > Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy at scytale.com > > DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division > > PGP Key 0x1AF39331 : 71D5 2EA2 4C27 D569 D96B BD40 D926 C05E > > Key available from pubkey at scytale.com > > I charge to process unsolicited commercial email > From a3495 at cotse.com Sun Aug 12 14:41:34 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer +Distributed Terascale Facility Message-ID: J.A. Terranson wrote: On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > 232.6 billion operations a second still looks fairly impressive to me. > > ~Faustine. >>Cryptographically speaking, *yawn*. "Fairly impressive" in that it's better than what I've got in my basement right now. And for me, part of the appeal lies in the satisfaction of putting something like that together entirely yourself out of components other people considered worthless and discarded. Not to mention being able to use it for whatever you want, whenever you want, without depending on anyone else's machine: a wonderful blend of self-sufficiency, ingenuity and megalomania, ha. Personally, I'd like to run problems through some optimization and simulation software, do a little code-based qualitative analysis, etc. without hogging resources somewhere else with all the old wizards looking over my shoulder, tapping their feet. Tim made a lot of great points about the drawbacks. Still, it's "a nice toy", as someone here characterized it. Here's something you might find a little more interesting: Linux supercomputing grid unveiled for science use By TODD R. WEISS The National Science Foundation (NSF) yesterday announced a $53 million project to connect a series of remotely located powerful computers into a high-speed Linux supercomputer grid that could open vast new opportunities for scientific and medical breakthroughs. The project, to be funded by a three-year grant from the NSF, will be built by the middle of next year, giving scientists and researchers access to massive combined supercomputer power they have until now only dreamed about. Called the Distributed Terascale Facility, the project will link powerful servers running Linux into a high-speed grid that will allow researchers to use all the computing resources they need, regardless of where the servers are located. At their disposal will be computing power of huge proportions, with a total of 8.1 TFLOPS and the ability to perform 13.6-trillion calculations per second. The grid will have storage of more than 450TB of data through a high-speed optical network called a TeraGrid, which will link computers and data at four academic research facilities in the U.S. Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM will provide more than 1,000 IBM eServer Linux clusters that will be running more than 3,300 of Intel Corp.'s upcoming McKinley Itanium processors for the system, as well as IBM data storage products and support services. Qwest Communications International Inc. in Denver will provide a 40-gigabit high-speed network for the grid system, which will be 16 times faster than what is available today. The supercomputer grid will link the National Center for Supercomputing Applications in Illinois, the San Diego Supercomputer Center in California, the Argonne National Laboratory in suburban Chicago and the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena into a cohesive group of computers with tremendous research potential, according to project organizers. "This is the first salvo in transforming how science and engineering research is done in the world," said Dan Reed, the director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. The facility is expected to reach peak performance of 13.6 TFLOPS by April 2003, and will be used for a wide range of projects, including research related to storm, climate and earthquake predictions; development of more- efficient combustion engines; chemical and molecular factors in biology; and physical, chemical and electrical properties of materials. "This facility will stretch the boundaries of high-performance computing and give U.S. computer scientists and other researchers in all science and engineering disciplines access to a critical new resource," said National Science Board Chairman Eamon Kelly. Eventually, similar grid computing systems are seen as having many uses for business computing, according to proponents. The announcement is the second related to grid computing this week. On Monday, IBM announced that it's building a worldwide grid computing network to tie together systems at its various data centers to combine their computing power for customers. Users would pay for processing time on an as- needed basis, similar to any other utility. IBM also said it's been chosen by the British government to build a national grid for various universities for collaborative scientific research. The grid will be run using middleware being built under the open-source Globus Project, a research initiative funded by various U.S. government agencies. Globus software will allow servers and computers to be connected into seamless networks that can be used together to conduct research and other work. Also involved in the project are cluster computing vendor Myricom Inc., software vendor Oracle Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 12 18:38:50 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 18:38:50 -0700 Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer +Distributed Terascale Facility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108130138.f7D1ciB30590@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 12, 2001, at 02:41 PM, Faustine wrote: > J.A. Terranson wrote: > On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > >> 232.6 billion operations a second still looks fairly impressive to me. >> >> ~Faustine. > >>> Cryptographically speaking, *yawn*. > > "Fairly impressive" in that it's better than what I've got in my > basement > right now. And for me, part of the appeal lies in the satisfaction of > putting something like that together entirely yourself out of components > other people considered worthless and discarded. Not to mention being > able > to use it for whatever you want, whenever you want, without depending on > anyone else's machine: a wonderful blend of self-sufficiency, ingenuity > and > megalomania, ha. So, are you now claiming you plan to build one? Why else the "part of the appeal lies in the satisfaction of" bit? As I showed in some calculations a few days ago, power costs dominate hardware costs with older CPUs. Not cost-effective to use older processors. > Personally, I'd like to run problems through some > optimization and simulation software, do a little code-based qualitative > analysis, etc. without hogging resources somewhere else with all the old > wizards looking over my shoulder, tapping their feet. Tim made a lot of > great points about the drawbacks. Still, it's "a nice toy", as someone > here > characterized it. As with AI and other speculative applications, 99.9% of solving a computational problem is finding the right approach, the right algorithms. I strongly doubt that there is anything along the lines of "run problems...simulation...code-based qualitative analysis" that you "need" a mere factor of 10 or 20 speed improvement with. (Said 10-20x speedup needing roughly 30-100 times as many CPUs, as I outlined in my recent post on using 66 MHz-300 MHz Pentiums and Pentiums IIs in place of 1.1 GHz Pentium IIIs, 1.4 GHz Athlons, 1.7 GHz Pentium 4s, etc.) It's sort of like astronomy: having a Keck or Hubble telescope sounds like a nice thing, but keeping it "loaded" is difficult for a user unless he has a very clear observation program in mind. Hence the intensive reviews for proposed uses. If you are already running a CPU-intensive task on a "mere" 10 GOPS machine, and you think that you can load a 500 GOPS machine efficiently, and you are willing to spend more in electrical power in the first year than buying faster CPUs would have provided (!!!), go for it. But if you just think it would be "neat" to have a 500 GOPS machine tripping your power mains when you turn the array on (you _did_ think about the additional power you'd have to provide, didn't you?), think harder. The Terascale machine is one of several such _large_ arrays. My old company, Intel, makes the IA-64 (Itanium, and followups) architecture. > Linux supercomputing grid unveiled for science use > > By TODD R. WEISS > The National Science Foundation (NSF) yesterday announced a $53 million > project to connect a series of remotely located powerful computers > into a > high-speed Linux supercomputer grid that could open vast new > opportunities > for scientific and medical breakthroughs. > The project, to be funded by a three-year grant from the NSF, will be > built > by the middle of next year, giving scientists and researchers access to > massive combined supercomputer power they have until now only dreamed > about. > .... > Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM will provide more than 1,000 IBM eServer Linux > clusters that will be running more than 3,300 of Intel Corp.'s upcoming > McKinley Itanium processors for the system, as well as IBM data storage > products and support services. And, of course, tasks for this machine will be very carefully picked. By the way, the involvement of IBM is an important point. No mention of their own "Power" architecture in this project. This is yet another hint that they moving in the same direction Compaq just signalled when the dropped the Alpha and adopted the IA-64. Since H-P is already a partner with Intel in the IA-64 effort, this means that every significant computer and server maker has adopted the IA-64 except for one: Sun Microsystems. They're still using the SPARC architecture, but clearly it has not become the building block they once hoped it would (for others). The fact that they don't control their own manufacturing of the chip is also an issue. MIPS has become a microcontroller and game machine CPU--consumer electronics. Alpha is being discontinued. H-P's PA-RISC is being merged into the IA-64 path, and IBM is hedging its bets on "Power" (PowerPC a la G3/G4 and its higher-end Power chips for large computers) by aggressively marketing Pentium, Xeon, and Itanium machines. That's all the major architectures gone or going, except for UltraSPARC. And knowing what I know about upcoming chips and processes, I'm hanging on to my Intel stock for the rocket ride that is coming. --Tim May From keyser-soze at hushmail.com Sun Aug 12 18:50:06 2001 From: keyser-soze at hushmail.com (keyser-soze at hushmail.com) Date: Sun Aug 12 18:50:06 PDT 2001 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108130148.f7D1mVQ30372@mailserver1c.hushmail.com> Michael Rubin's August 9th piece, "Indict Saddam," did not address two key questions upon which international criminal courts rest: are they founded on a universally recognized basis, and are their processes being uniformly applied? Basis Fundamental questions have been raised regarding the legal and moral foundation of ad hoc judicial forums, such the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague and Rwandan tribunals. Both were created by the U.N. Security Council though its charter mentions no such authority. Isn't this little more than mob justice carried out by nation states? Come to think of it isn't the purpose of all murder trials "civilized Vengeance" (small c, big V)? The espoused purpose of these courts is to enforce "norms of justice in the international community." But who constitutes that community and what are those norms? The truth is justice like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Historically, the notion of what is just has varied considerably and often based on economics and religion. Modern western justice tends to ignore these factors and so sets the stage, indirectly, for a trial of cultures. Even within the west these norms seem to be rapidly changing. Can or should such norms be used a basis for international law? Uniform Application Like the Nuremberg trials before them, these tribunals appear ripe with application of ex post facto "laws" and inattention to technicalities. They often bear little resemblance to the laws and their application within the major U.N. member states. The states have no great interest in either bringing a consistent moral basis to their foreign and domestic policies or establishing strong extra-national courts which could conceivably bring national leaders to account their actions. All potential violators must be investigated with equal vigilance and judged according to a uniform standard or none should be. Serious charges have been leveled against Henry Kissenger yet no criminal indictments have been brought or even discussed by the tribunals. Unless these courts are held by world citizens to the motto "Equal Justice Under Law" carved on our Supreme Court building then no courts should be convened. Current procedures brand the courts as a propaganda puppet show merely using forms of justice to carry out a predetermined policy. Competition Despite frequent evidence that economics trump justice, national governments continue the charade of representing all the interests of their citizens. Mohammed Douri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador's quote in the article put it cynically and succinctly, "Politics is about interests. Politics is not about morals." I believe Mohammed is right. That these courts aren't better is because, like most governmental services, they have no need: there is no viable alternative. If one accepts the American Constitutional notion that all rights are originally vested in the sovereign individual and that competition is usually the best path to maximizing quality of a service, then a clear path extends to a market based solution. Effective private justice may not provide a fairer outcome but it will offer an alternative which will challenge the current tribunals and their masters to either abandon pretexts that they are impartial, abandon the tribunals altogether or improve them. Any attempt to establish a private global (as opposed to international, as in between nations) justice system are likely to be met with harsh responses by the major nation states. They don't want the competition and some of their current or former leaders and their lieutenants could be the first facing indictments. So, anonymity of supporters is a prerequisite. The Internet has shown us that it can be an effective medium for annealing those with out of the mainstream political views into formidable groups whilst offering effective privacy. Money often buys justice. So, a means for moralists to anonymously fund their interests is needed. Fortunately, a number of effective and popular electronic currencies (e.g., e-gold) with adequate privacy features exist. Every successful social movement requires leadership. Hopefully someone of great character and stature will step forward or emerge and take the reins to either bring all to account for their war crime actions (by whatever means necessary) or thwart (by whatever means necessary) the ability of the U.N. tribunals to operate from their baseless pedestal. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From schear at lvcm.com Sun Aug 12 19:11:30 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 19:11:30 -0700 Subject: Indict Saddam? In-Reply-To: References: <200108130148.f7D1mVQ30372@mailserver1c.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010812190731.048d0110@pop3.lvcm.com> At 09:00 PM 8/12/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: >Keyser: > > their interests is needed. Fortunately, a number of effective > > and popular electronic currencies (e.g., e-gold) with adequate > > privacy features exist. > >Would somebody explain e-gold's privacy features to me? > >Pretty please? Perhaps, though e-gold is account based there is no requirement for providing a meat space identity to open an account. Therefore if one acquires e-gold by exchanging some unlinkable value then they may spend it with a reasonable level of privacy. steve From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 12 18:01:37 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:01:37 -0500 Subject: OPT: Slashdot | Patent Invention Machines Message-ID: <3B7726F1.BE56D553@ssz.com> A tad more interesting than 'yawn'... http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/12/1753210.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 12 18:11:57 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:11:57 -0500 Subject: MATT DRUDGE // DRUDGE REPORT 2001 - Federal Grand Jury Probes Human Cloning Claims Message-ID: <3B77295D.BE603820@ssz.com> http://www.drudgereport.com/dna1.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Sun Aug 12 17:27:31 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:27:31 -0400 Subject: Friend - Special ANNOUNCEMENT!!!! $$ Message-ID: <200108130027.UAA16827@www.infogeneratorpro.com> Sun Aug 12, 2001 Dear Friend, You recently wanted to know more about how to earn $10,000 a month from home after visiting our site- www.paymeveryday.com/5.htm Well Here you go my friend: Congrats! You are about to begin the road to more wealth, prosperity & abundance! And, lets not forget a $300 a month car bonus and free vacation. We will send you our FREE CD-ROM Info-Pack via first class mail today so that you can take a look at our great work at home business opportunity and decide if its for you! In-Order to do so please reply to this email with Your: Name Mailing Address Phone # Email Address so we can send you the CDROM today!! Your CD ROM will have all the simple to follow steps to get you started ASAP so that you can begin to get paid EVERY DAY!! This is the most DUPLICATABLE,FUN and Lucrative business opportunity on the PLANET!! Your Success is My Success, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from THIS list: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe _____________ OR _________________________ Remove yourself from ALL LISTS at InfoGeneratorPRO: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe_all Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sun Aug 12 19:00:05 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:00:05 -0500 Subject: In-Reply-To: <200108130148.f7D1mVQ30372@mailserver1c.hushmail.com> Message-ID: Keyser: > their interests is needed. Fortunately, a number of effective > and popular electronic currencies (e.g., e-gold) with adequate > privacy features exist. Would somebody explain e-gold's privacy features to me? Pretty please? ~Aimee From jya at pipeline.com Sun Aug 12 21:05:56 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:05:56 -0700 Subject: Cell Phone Gun Message-ID: <200108130108.VAA17144@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Anonymous forwarded a video (with sound) of a cell phone gun, showing it being assembled and fired four times: http://cryptome.org/handy-gun.htm This device was described here some time ago, I believe, and while the forwarded post appeared to come from a USAF officer on Milnet, I wonder if the gun is authentic. Other stories on this? The AF officer warns that while the weapon has not yet appeared in the US, it is being found now and then in Europe, especially Germany. And US Customs is checking cellphones of arriving passengers, so do not hestitate to hand yours over if asked or you might get shot. With the millions of cellphones in Europe it is a wonder that a jumpy cop has not yet shot a kid for failing to give up an inseparable handy. From teensexmailer-request at list.emailbucks.com Sun Aug 12 21:38:36 2001 From: teensexmailer-request at list.emailbucks.com (teensexmailer-request at list.emailbucks.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: teensexmailer [|MOlw4O93h%2BTkH4nhYj5tcXPYK%2F7qAY5vJ7O270%2FZA0s%3D|] Message-ID: <819852.997677745896.JavaMail.root@mlserve> It's easy to receive your FREE subscription to TeenSexMail. Just reply to this message. You must be 18 years of age to receive SeXXXmail. Delete this message and DO NOT reply if you are under 18! TeenSexMail is received by over 1.000.000 subscribers daily and is rated as the #1 adult newsletter on the Internet. Don't delay, it's FREE! From casinos-request at list.outcomemail.com Sun Aug 12 21:38:39 2001 From: casinos-request at list.outcomemail.com (casinos-request at list.outcomemail.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:38:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: C-casinos [|ssdzM60yhBOfZX7ixZbvv4hlYdcOxnNM|] Message-ID: <6801920.997677745449.JavaMail.root@mlserve> It's easy to receive your FREE subscription to The Casino Bulletin! Just reply to this message. You must be 18 years of age to receive Casino News and Tips. Delete this message and DO NOT reply if you are under 18! Casino News and Tips is received by over 500,000 subscribers daily and is rated as the #1 newsletter on the Internet. Don't delay, it's FREE! From celebritymailer-request at list.emailbucks.com Sun Aug 12 21:38:42 2001 From: celebritymailer-request at list.emailbucks.com (celebritymailer-request at list.emailbucks.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: celebritymailer [|24hMfSCSAeafZX7ixZbvv4hlYdcOxnNM|] Message-ID: <2911032.997677744419.JavaMail.root@mlserve> It's easy to receive your FREE subscription to SeXXXmail. Just reply to this message. You must be 18 years of age to receive celebritymail. Delete this message and DO NOT reply if you are under 18! Celebritymail is received by over 500,000 subscribers daily and is rated as the #1 adult newsletter on the Internet. Don't delay, it's FREE! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From celebritymailer at list.emailbucks.com Sun Aug 12 22:51:14 2001 From: celebritymailer at list.emailbucks.com (celebritymailer at list.emailbucks.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: celebritymailer Message-ID: <1516794.997682100487.JavaMail.root@mlserve> Welcome! Your subscription request has been processed for the Celebritymail mailing list. You will soon begin receiving the finest Adult Entertainment the Web has to offer in the privacy of your email box. The first premium hardcore site we selected for you is TRUECELEBS. For new subscribers we have an exclusive offer. http://www.truecelebs.com/cgi-bin/click-tc.cgi?ebwelcome TRUECELEBS offers you: Britney Spears Exclusive! Revealing Super Star photos 45.000 explicit pics 76.000 movies http://www.truecelebs.com/cgi-bin/click-tc.cgi?ebwelcome --- Have you heard about FirstName Mail? You can get a FREE you at mikesmail.com address or pick from 500 other names for free. http://www.emailbucks.com/entry/entry.cgi?firstname -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5478 bytes Desc: not available URL: From freematt at coil.com Sun Aug 12 21:39:58 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:39:58 -0400 Subject: Cell Phone Gun In-Reply-To: <200108130108.VAA17144@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> References: <200108130108.VAA17144@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: At 11:20 AM -0800 12/7/00, Dave Farber wrote: >Delivered-To: ip-sub-1-outgoing at admin.listbox.com >Delivered-To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com >X-Sender: dfarber at pop.fast.net >Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:20:01 -0800 >To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com >From: Dave Farber >Subject: IP: Re: ABCNEWS.com Cell Phone Guns Discovered >Sender: owner-ip-sub-1 at admin.listbox.com >Reply-To: farber at cis.upenn.edu > > >>Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:20:47 -0500 >>To: farber at cis.upenn.edu >>From: Matthew Gaylor >> >>Nothing really new here- I've seen pagers either firing a single >>.25 ACP round or acting as a concealed holster for a small auto for >>several years. Plus North American Arms has been making their >>mini-revolver in .22lr as the center piece on a decorative belt >>buckle for maybe 15 years. Several different walking cane guns are >>available as are umbrellas that either have a gun or sword blade >>concealed. I've seen one specimen that was disguised as a woman's >>lipstick that was really a single shot .22 (Talk about looks that >>Kill). >> >>Working guns have been made concealed into the bottom of a shoe as >>early as the America Civil War. There are even gun collectors who >>specialize in such guns. >> >>Regards, Matthew Gaylor- > > > >For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From bogus@does.not.exist.com Mon Aug 13 04:54:40 2001 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 04:54:40 -0700 Subject: Requested Quick Cash Link91 Message-ID: <200108131154.f7DBseX14546@web.innetix.com> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by () on Monday, August 13, 2001 at 04:54:39 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- message: Up to $45,000 Monthly!! Every Single Month!! This is not MLM Sales Networking or Work! Visit http://www.geocities.com/quicklink11902 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jya at pipeline.com Mon Aug 13 06:02:49 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:02:49 -0700 Subject: Cell Phone Gun In-Reply-To: References: <200108130108.VAA17144@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <200108130108.VAA17144@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108131006.GAA30940@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Thanks to Interesting People and Matthew Gaylor here is the ABC News report of December 6, 2000, on the cell phone gun: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/phone001205.html From tcgreene at bellatlantic.net Mon Aug 13 06:14:30 2001 From: tcgreene at bellatlantic.net (Thomas C. Greene) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:14:30 -0700 Subject: Rand urges face-scanning of the masses Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20966.html Think tank urges face-scanning of the masses The famous Rand Organization http://www.rand.org, a putatively non-partisan think tank, has come out in favor of using face-scanning technology to violate the privacy of the innocent masses in search of -- you guessed it -- terrorists and pedophiles, the two most detested fringe-groups on the planet. Following the regrettable inclinations of all modern governments, a recent Rand report http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP209/IP209.pdf reckons that the natural rights of the majority of ordinary, law-abiding citizens should be sacrificed for the sacred mission of identifying and prosecuting a mere handful of sexually perverted or homicidal lunatics. "Biometric facial recognition can provide significant benefits to society," Rand says, and adds that "we should not let the fear of potential but inchoate threats to privacy, such as super surveillance, deter us from using facial recognition where it can produce positive benefits." Chief among these are the detection of terrorists and pedophiles, as we said. No matter that these sick individuals comprise a mere fraction of a fraction of normal human beings. No matter that detecting them requires the most outrageous government intrusions into the natural comings and goings of millions of innocent people. Rand's answer to serious questions of personal liberty is a few easily-skirted regulations which ought to allay all of our concerns. "By implementing reasonable safeguards [for government use of biometric face scanning], we can harness its power to maximize its benefits while minimizing the intrusion on individual privacy," the report chirps optimistically. Rand returns repeatedly to the controversial, and prosecutorially worthless, use of biometric face scanning at the 2001 Super Bowl http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/16561.html. "While facial recognition did not lead to any arrests at the Super Bowl, there is evidence that using such a system can help deter crime. In Newham, England, the crime rate fell after police installed 300 surveillance cameras and incorporated facial recognition technology. While it is possible that the criminals only shifted their efforts to other locales, crime in Newham at least was deterred." That's rich. So it's 'possible' that local criminals moved elsewhere, is it? Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it's certain that they did, which implies that no one will ever be safe until every dark corner of the planet is blanketed by high-tech cameras performing a sort of criminal triage on all of us. And after all, things could be worse. "The facial recognition system used at the Super Bowl was not physically invasive or intrusive for spectators. In fact, it was much less invasive than a metal detector at a public building or an inauguration parade checkpoint. In this sense, facial recognition helped to protect the privacy of individuals, who otherwise might have to endure more individualized police attention," Rand points out. Of course, no appeal to Fascism and Kafkaesque control would be complete without reference to the safety of innocent children. Rand does not let us down: "many parents would most likely feel safer knowing their children's elementary school had a facial recognition system to ensure that convicted child molesters were not granted access to school grounds." It's all very popular, but immensely dangerous, thinking. Preserving personal liberty requires that we all accept a bit of chaos, a bit of hooliganism, a bit of risk. Yes, you or I might possibly get our heads bashed in by brain-dead hooligans, or get blown up by terrorist bombers, and our little lambs might get exploited by sexual sickos if we don't keep a close eye on them. But probably not. Surely, the suffocating, risk-free environments our governments are trying so desperately to sell us to extend their powers of observation and control are far more grotesque and soul-destroying than anything a terrorist or a pedophile might ever hope to produce. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 13 05:10:11 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:10:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: NSA's new mode of operation broken in less than 24 hours (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 11 Aug 2001 00:43:19 GMT From: David Wagner To: coderpunks at toad.com Newsgroups: isaac.lists.coderpunks Subject: Re: NSA's new mode of operation broken in less than 24 hours Since I saw some discussion of NSA's Dual Counter Mode here: The analysis Pompiliu Donescu, Virgil Gligor, and I did on their mode is now available online. See below for more information. Pompiliu Donescu, Virgil D. Gligor, and David Wagner, ``A Note on NSA's Dual Counter Mode of Encryption,'' preliminary version, August 5, 2001. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/dcm-prelim.ps Abstract. We show that both variants of the Dual Counter Mode of encryption (DCM) submitted for consideration as an AES mode of operation to NIST by M. Boyle and C. Salter of the NSA are insecure with respect to both secrecy and integrity in the face of chosen-plaintext attacks. We argue that DCM cannot be easily changed to satisfy its stated performance goal and be secure. Hence repairing DCM does not appear worthwhile. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 13 05:10:43 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:10:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: NSA withdraws proposed mode of operation (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:35:39 -0300 From: "Paulo S. L. M. Barreto" To: coderpunks at toad.com Subject: NSA withdraws proposed mode of operation Many coderpunks probably already know the details; anyway, here's the story. Phillip Rogaway's description of the weaknesses found in NSA's Dual Counter Mode are at the bottom. Enjoy, Paulo. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 07:25:34 -0400 From: Robert Shea Subject: Dual Counter Mode (DCM) On behalf of Brian Snow, Technical Director, Information Assurance, NSA, the following message is forwarded to the AES Team at NIST: NSA believes that a license-free high-speed integrity-preserving mode of operation is needed for the Advanced Encryption Standard, and was pleased to submit the "Dual Counter Mode" (DCM) as a participant in the series of AES Modes Workshops sponsored by NIST. Recently Virgil Gligor and Pompiliu Donescu of the University of Maryland, Phillip Rogaway of the UC Davis and Chiang Mai University, David Wagner of Berkeley, and possibly others, have produced results concerning the secrecy and integrity claims made for DCM. We commend them for their work We withdraw the Dual Counter Mode for consideration as a mode of operation for AES at this time, while we consider the observations and their ramifications. We believe a license-free high-speed integrity-preserving mode of operation is still needed for AES, and will continue to work on this problem as well as encourage others to do so. Brian D. Snow Technical Director Information Assurance Directorate National Security Agency ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic: Comments on "Dual Counter Mode" (manuscript date: 4 July 2001) (a modes-of-operation proposal by Mike Boyle and Chris Salter) From: Phillip Rogaway UC Davis and Chiang Mai University Date: Aug 4, 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEFINITION OF DCM The definition of DCM isn't real clear, but this is what I understand. Let P = P_1 P_2 ... P_j be the plaintext to encrypt, where one assumes each |P_i|=n and j>0. Let Key = (K, x_0) be the DCM key, where K keys an n-bit block cipher E (I refuse to use "W" for the block length!) and x_0 is a n-bit string. For concreteness, say n = 128. Let N be an n-bit nonce. (The authors specify N = SEQ | SPI | padding, but I shall ignore this, it being, to me, an inappropriate mixing of an application of a mode and the definition of that mode.) The authors map (N, x_0) into a sequence of offsets (they call them "fills") y_0 y_1 y_2 ... y_j y_{j+1} by y_0 = x_0 + N // addition mod 2^n, for example and, for i>0, y_i = multx(y_{i-1}), where, say, / (a << 1) if msb(a)=0 multx(a) = | \ (a << 1) xor 0^{120}10000111 if msb(a)=1 That is, y_i = (x_0 + N) * x^i, where the multiplication is in GF(2^n). Now define DCM_Key (N, P) as C = C_1 C_2 ... C_j C_{j+1} where C_i = E_K( P_i xor y_i) xor y_i for i in [1..j] checksum = P_1 xor ... xor P_j xor N C_{j+1} = E_K(checksum xor y_{j+1}) xor y_0 2. COMPARISON WITH IAPM DCM is identical to IAPM except (a) IAPM omits the nonce N from the checksum (why these authors include the nonce I do not know); and (b) IAPM suggested different (and smarter) ways to make the offsets. 3. THE CHANGES DON'T WORK The changes to IAPM break it; one can see rather easily that DCM does not achieve the usual definitions for privacy or authenticity. 3.1 NO SEMANTIC SECURITY (the customary privacy definition) For simplicity, assume lsb(x_0)=0. (This happens half the time so there is no problem making this assumption.) First observe that nonces with related values map to offsets with related values. In particular, nonces N and (N xor 1) (in a context like this "1" means 0^{n-1}1) map to offsets the first few of which are: N |--> y_0, y_1, y_2 N xor 1 |--> y_0 xor 1, y_1 xor 2, y_2 xor 4 Let the adversary ask a query DCM_Key(0, 0), obtaining a ciphertext that starts with first block C_1; now note that first block of DCM_Key(1, 2) will be C_1 xor 2. This violates privacy. (For example, you can easily tell apart the sequence of messages 0, 0 and 0, 2 when they are DCM-encrypted using nonces 0 and then 1.) [Reminder: my notation is ciphertext = DCM_Key(nonce, plaintext)] 3.2. NO AUTHENTICITY OF CIPHERTEXTS (the customary authenticity definition) For convenience of description, assume that the first two bits and the last two bits of x_0 are 00 (which happens 1/16 of the time, anyway). Let the adversary ask queries: DCM_Key(0, 0) --> getting C_1 C_2. DCM_Key(1, 0 2) --> getting C_1' C_2' C_3' Note: C_2 = E_K(x_0 << 2) xor x_0 and C_2' = E_K((x_0 + 1 << 2) xor 2) xor (x_0 + 1) << 2 = E_K(x_0 << 2) xor (x_0 << 2) xor 2 So C_2 xor x_0 = C_2' xor (x_0<<2) xor 2 and thus x_0 xor (x_0 <<2) = C_2 xor C_2' xor 2 Solve for x_0 (easy by our assumption that x_0 ends in 00). With x_0 now known, one can compute the y_0, y_1, y_2 values associated to any nonce. Forging a ciphertext becomes easy. 4. AND WHAT IF THE NONCE HAD BEEN SEQ | SPI | padding? I think it wouldn't have mattered. With a choice of N = N' | comp(N'), say, where N' is a 64-bit nonce, N' and (N' xor 1) would still map to y_1 and y_1 xor 2, respectively, so you could play the same sorts of games. 5. WHAT'S THE STORY HERE? The entire discussion of out-of-order-packets in the DCM note makes no real sense, as best as I can tell. The authors "solution" amounts to throwing in a nonce -- which is of course present in all of the authenticated-encryption proposals already. The introductory statements about the overhead of IAPM (and other proposals) seems to reflect a non-understanding of that mode. And then the mode itself, which was so easily attacked. All rather odd. From cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com Mon Aug 13 07:24:41 2001 From: cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com (cypherpunks-unedited at toad.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:24:41 Subject: Wholesale Mortgage Rates Time:7:24:41 AM Message-ID: U.S. HomeOwners ONLY Available to the public for the first time. Use the same technology that the pros use to find you the best loans, regardless of credit. This revolutionary technology finds you the best approvable loans at the lowest rate from hundreds of lenders. Written about in National Mortgage News, Mortgage Technology Magazine, Mortgage Originator Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times. FREE Service, takes 2 minutes. Experience it today at http://www.ratedoctor.com - All Credit Grades - Refinance Loans - 2nd Mortgages - Debt Consolidation Loans - Home Improvement Loans - Cash on Demand Loans - all at Wholesale Mortgage Rates FREE Service, takes 2 minutes. Experience it today at http://www.ratedoctor.com *********************************************************** Since you have received this message you have either responded to one of our offers in the past or your address has been registered with us. If you wish to be removed please reply to: mailto:rbaker at ahlcentral.com?subject=remove ************************************************************ From trend33165 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 13 05:44:56 2001 From: trend33165 at yahoo.com (Trend Marketing & Associates) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:44:56 EDT Subject: Felicidades! Reclame su crucero ya! Message-ID: <37964075.9.8057@mbox.surecom.com> ¡Felicidades! Por ser usuario del internet usted ha sido seleccionado para recibir un boleto gratís para el siguiente paquete vacacional con crucero para disfrutar con su familia. Usted puede preparar las maletas y disfrutar de este programa vacacional exótico cuando desee. Todos los boletos tienen una vigencia de doce meses. DreamTime Tours International Travel Services tiene el orgullo de patrocinar este evento. Somos uno de los mayoristas de viajes más grandes de la Florida y el número uno del mercado hispano. Ubicado en Miami, Florida, DreamTime Tours International ha hecho viajar más de 50,000 familias en los ultimos 9 años en las vacaciones de sus sueños. Nuestra licencia estatal de la Florida es el ST-22168 y está respaldado 100% con una fianza que le garantiza sus vacaciones. Estamos haciendo esta oferta internacional solo al titular de este correo electrónico con el proposito de promover el turismo en la Florida. Esto no es una promoción para tiempo compartido, bienes raices ní "time share"sino una oferta legitima de vacaciones de uno de los mayores vendedores al por mayor de vacaciones de la Florida. Favor de imprimir este documento y tener listo el número de reservación que aparece abajo. Esta es una oferta limitada y los operadores están esperando su llamada. Número de Reservación 23142092 Sus vacaciones de ensueño incluyen: 3 días y 2 noches de alojamiento frente al mar en la fabulosa Fort Lauderdale, Florida patronicinado por la prestigiosa cadena de hoteles finos Ramada Plaza Resorts. Mientras está en Fort Lauderdale recibirá el programa “VIP” en el Sawgrass Mills Mall con descuentos de hasta $1,500 en mercancia, comidas y servicios. Diviértase a bordo de uno de nuestros lujosos cruceros durante 3 días y 2 noches a Nassau, Bahamas. Todas las comidas, las diversiones y su cabina a bordo del barco están incluidas. También hay discotecas, casino, shows al estilo de Las Vegas y toda clase de actividades. Desembarque en Nassau, Bahamas. Vaya de compras libre de impuestos, juegue al golf, practique deportes acuáticos o simplemente relájese en las playas de arena blanca. De regreso tendrá 4 días y 3 noches de alojamiento en el mágico Orlando, el hogar de Disney®, Epcot® y los estudios Universales® y MGM®. Tendrá un talonario de cupones con descuentos de más de $500 para comidas, entretenimientos y atracciones en el area de Orlando. Gratís el alquiler de un carro con kilometraje ilimitado durante su estadía en la Florida patrocinado por InterAmerican Rental Car o Thrifty Rental Car. Si desea usted puede utilizar su boleto gratis para otros destinos alternos que ofrecemos. ¡Llame ahora mismo para detalles! ¡BONO ADICIONAL! Por reservar hoy usted recibirá otros 3 días y 2 noches  adicionales gratis en uno de nuestros exóticos destinos. ¡LLAME AHORA MISMO! ¡LLAMADA GRATIS DESDE PUERTO RICO! 1-800-559-3239 LOS DEMAS PAISES: 001-305-899-8889 (Desde Colombia 0091-305-899-8889) ¡Si está ocupado siga llamando! ¡Para asegurar que entre su llamada y que usted no pierda su boleto  llame por un teléfono normal y no por medio del Internet! Debido a la gran demanda se acepta una sola llamada por e-mail. Somos miembros de la Cámara de Comercio, IATAN y CLIA Lunes a Viernes 8:00AM A 10:30PM Sabados 9:00AM A 5:00PM (Domingos cerrado) Dreamtime Tours está registrado en el estado de la Florida como mayorista de viajes. Registro número ST-22168. DreamTime Tours le garantiza sus reservas a través de nuestro departamento reservaciones. TERMINOS Y CONDICIONES DREAMTIME TOURS es una agencia autorizada de reservaciones en los E.E.U.U. de todas las demás empresas arriba mencionadas y lleva a cabo el cumplimiento de este promoción de vacaciones. Nuestro éxito se debe a que nuestros clientes vuelven a viajar con nosotros una y otra vez. Esta oferta no se le ofrece al público en general. Queda bajo las leyes y regulaciones federales, estatales y locales. Esta oferta no está relacionada con ninguna oferta de tiempo compartido o "time share" ni con ninguna oferta de bienes raíces. El cumplimiento de esta oferta está garantizada por el departamento de reservaciones de DREAMTIME TOURS que está registrada como agencia de viajes en la Florida con el registro ST-22168. Todos los paquetes vacacionales para esta promoción exclusiva son para un mínimo de dos personas. A cada persona notificada se le ha asignado números de control y reservación. Ciertas restricciones pueden aplicar. Esto no es ninguna lotería, concurso o sorteo. ¡Se acepta una so! la! llamada para inscribirse! No se aceptan llamdas de terceros ni se le pueden dar detalles. Un hotel puede ser sustituido por otro de la misma clase si no hubiese disponibilidad. La oferta del coche de alquiler no incluye seguros, impuestos ní opciones adicionales. DREAMTIME TOURS INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICES 12000 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 202 Miami, Florida 33181 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 8240 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ericm at lne.com Mon Aug 13 09:32:14 2001 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:32:14 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messa ges. In-Reply-To: ; from ptrei@rsasecurity.com on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:30:14AM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20010813093214.A788@slack.lne.com> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:30:14AM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > If MS ever decided that they were losing money due to poor security, > they would get good at it, fast. How many fewer copies of WinXP will > they sell due to Code Red I, II, and III? Not many. A few (a very few) > sysadmins may decide to go with Apache instead of IIS. It's not like > many home or corporate users are going to switch to Linux purely > due to security issues. Especially with the press constantly telling them "Linux is hard". Most people know that MS software is buggy and inecure. But they think that it is normal to have to reboot your computer daily and to get infected with worms through your email. After all, it's the same for all their friends and co-workers, how can they even know to expect anything else? Almost all the press tells them that MS is the only way to go and that anything else is wierd and hard to run. The unreliability and security holes are just a burden to be borne... it's remarkable how much people can tolerate if it's done to them gradually. > I'm aware of exactly two datapoints - Skipjack (which wasn't good enough > that anyone wanted to use it), and the recent 'dual counter mode' snafu. > That's not enough to draw broad conclusions. SHA-2? Still not enough to draw conclusions. Eric From unicorn at schloss.li Mon Aug 13 09:42:54 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:42:54 -0700 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. References: Message-ID: <001f01c12417$03f218d0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene Leitl" To: "Trei, Peter" Cc: ; "Faustine" ; Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:49 AM Subject: RE: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least > > at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there > > will be little or no improvement in the situation. > > I think this is the wrong approach to the situation. Making people liable > stifles innovation. I think 30+ years of active products liability jurisprudence might disagree with you. Just in the automotive world and off the top of my head: Automatic Breaking Systems, designed failure points (crumple zones), 6mph bumpers, "safety glass," shoulder belts, passive belts, air bags and a host of other technologies or innovations that may or may not have been developed "but for" litigation are most probably the result of strict liability in products liability cases. The effect is to make safety profitable- or more accurately, to make unsafety unprofitable. See generally Posner, Hallman and the "Chicago School of Law and Economics," an entire movement in legal thought centered on the idea that you are very wrong about the effect of liability on innovation. Now less I be misinterpreted, misworded, misquoted and misunderstood by the various misanthropic types here: Do I think that software should have products liability attached to it? No. Do I think strict liability stifles innovation? No. From jtl at getresponse.com Mon Aug 13 08:51:51 2001 From: jtl at getresponse.com (jtl at getresponse.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:51:51 -0600 Subject: We are now hiring home job positions! Message-ID: <200108131542.f7DFg6A04781@pax.minder.net> Our company is now hiring home job positions. There is no previous experience required. All training is provided. We are looking for anyone who is currently looking for a home job, full or part-time. You may choose your own schedule. We have limited positions available. Some of the positions include earnings of $40k a year and up. This is not a home business opportunity. This is a Home job that you will begin to get paid for the minute you start working. For job listing and applying just reply to this message or send blank e-mail to: jtl at getresponse.com Home Employment Director John Lindsey PS: All website owners please contact me if your willing to help get the word out. We are trying to fill positions fast! Thanks! From jtl at getresponse.com Mon Aug 13 08:53:28 2001 From: jtl at getresponse.com (jtl at getresponse.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:53:28 -0600 Subject: We are now hiring home job positions! Message-ID: <200108131523.IAA29887@ecotone.toad.com> Our company is now hiring home job positions. There is no previous experience required. All training is provided. We are looking for anyone who is currently looking for a home job, full or part-time. You may choose your own schedule. We have limited positions available. Some of the positions include earnings of $40k a year and up. This is not a home business opportunity. This is a Home job that you will begin to get paid for the minute you start working. For job listing and applying just reply to this message or send blank e-mail to: jtl at getresponse.com Home Employment Director John Lindsey PS: All website owners please contact me if your willing to help get the word out. We are trying to fill positions fast! Thanks! From gurli14 at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 10:17:43 2001 From: gurli14 at hotmail.com (Anna Dunayev) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:17:43 -0700 Subject: hello...i applied for your job but... Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 744 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Mon Aug 13 07:30:14 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:30:14 -0400 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messa ges. Message-ID: > jamesd at echeque.com[SMTP:jamesd at echeque.com] wrote: > > Microsoft, as a whole, is incompetent at security. All > supposedly secure software coming out of Microsoft varies from > poor to worthless. Does anyone doubt it? They take standard > well known methods and make well known bungles in applying it and > customizing it. > Microsoft's forte is making money. They do this by spending hugely on what people think they want (ease of use), and not wasting resources on things which do not impact market share. If MS ever decided that they were losing money due to poor security, they would get good at it, fast. How many fewer copies of WinXP will they sell due to Code Red I, II, and III? Not many. A few (a very few) sysadmins may decide to go with Apache instead of IIS. It's not like many home or corporate users are going to switch to Linux purely due to security issues. I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there will be little or no improvement in the situation. > We do not get to see much of the spook output. What we have seen > in recent years is not good. > I'm aware of exactly two datapoints - Skipjack (which wasn't good enough that anyone wanted to use it), and the recent 'dual counter mode' snafu. That's not enough to draw broad conclusions. > During world war II the government sucked up all the best people > from the open sector, and put them to work in the secret sector. > For example most of the words greatest scientists wound up hand > making nuclear weapons. However, one would expect, with the > passage of time, that people who work in secret would suffer from > Parkinson's law, and this appears to be happening. > [...] > Microsoft produces crap security because most of their customers > do not know any better. Therefore NSA will produce crap security > because their customers are forbidden to know any better. > MS makes crap because their customers buy it. If the customers (or their insurers) insisted on security, MS would do better. (BTW, MS's security rep is now so bad, that I know of security experts who would not work for them, due to the damage it would do to their reputations). I occasionally see the argument that NSA can't retain people due to the much higher salaries, etc, in the public sector. While I have no doubt that this is partially true, there are plenty of very good people who find that the non-tangible benefits - patriotism, a sense that one's work is important, that one is a trusted member of the inner circle and privy to secret knowledge - are more than enough to make up for a civil service paycheck. No one should discount these factors just because they don't move them themselves. > James A. Donald > Peter Trei From unicorn at schloss.li Mon Aug 13 10:55:04 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:55:04 -0700 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: ... References: Message-ID: <003001c12421$15deacc0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trei, Peter" To: "Eugene Leitl" ; "'Black Unicorn'" Cc: Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: RE: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: ... > > Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] [On products liability, strict liability and innovation]: > > The effect is to make safety profitable- or more accurately, > > to make unsafety unprofitable. See generally Posner, Hallman and the > > "Chicago School of Law and Economics," an entire movement in legal > > thought centered on the idea that you are very wrong about the effect > > of liability on innovation. > > > > Now less I be misinterpreted, misworded, misquoted and misunderstood by > > the various misanthropic types here: > > > > Do I think that software should have products liability attached to it? > > No. Do I think strict liability stifles innovation? No. > > > [I hate to post something that makes it look as if I'm doing further > BU bashing (which is not my intention), but:...] Bash all you want as long as you do it in an educated way. > When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. With a hammer as big as litigation in the United States, everything might as well be a nail. I take no position on the good or ill of this particular state of affairs. > There are > other groups which can apply pressure than lawyers, courts and Men > with Guns. Auditors and insurance companies come to mind. Both of which are just extensions of the possibility of loss through products liability suits and other legal liability. The plaintiff's lawyer is key in the mix in all of these examples. Auditors are the passthrough to investors and other interested parties of information which might indicate the company's vulnerability to such a suit. Auditors drive their customers to adopt these practices because they have a fiduciary duty to draw attention to the potentia l harm and because they are the authority to define standard practices. Insurance companies heighten their standards to adjust coverage premiums based on the company's potential vulnerability to such a suit. They judge these vulnerabilities based on the babble and/or blessings of the auditors. Exercise for the student: Name three market forces which might cause the innovation of air bags as a safety feature which are not litigation related. (Hint: it's a hard problem- it's also a pointless one because air bags were finally brought to market- they had existed for years- specifically because of 3 law suits in the United States). Do a little leg work. Who first deployed airbags in their cars in the U.S.? When? That should tell you quite a lot about how they got there. > Schneier has noted how improvements in safe (as in a secure metal box) > technology was driven not by losses, not by customers, nor by lawsuits, > but rather by insurance requirements. Which are in turn driven by losses, lawsuits and again by extension of those: customer requirements. It all comes down to what the insurance company expects to have to pay in policies and what they expect to get in premiums. What they have to pay is based on loss expectations. Those loss expectations are heightened by threat of legal liability. Those payments are irritating to the customer. The customer does a basic analysis: When is my break even point for the investment I am going to make in improved metal boxes vs. the decrease in premiums I expect as a result? It's basic econ. Very basic. Are you really trying to assert that legal liability- perceived or actual- is not the driving force behind product development in these areas in the United States? You might want to read some Posner before you comment again. (See Also Generally: Bank Robberies and Bank Security Precautions, T.H. Hannan, A Theory of Economic Loss in the Law of Torts, M.J. Rizzo, Accumulating Damages in Litigation: The Roles of Uncertainty and Interest Rates, J.M. Patell, R.L. Weil and M.A. Wolfson). > 'You're running your ecommerce site on IIS? Ok, that's 10% extra on your > premiums." (This is already starting to happen). It's been happening for years, except it comes under the careful auspice of a "SAS70 Audit" (Statement on Auditing Standards No. 70) and not a blatant MS bashing fest. SAS70 had information security provisions in it as early as 1995 or 1996. Why? Because the ABA and the AICPA- who despite much mutual animus often get together to discuss such things- thought it a good idea to introduce infosec as a section into the standard report format. (I was, _very tangentially_, involved in some of that. These were the days of Michael Baum, Verisign and the ABA, Stewart Baker, Export Control, AICPA and the Commissioners for Uniform State Law). And why not? For the ABA- it meant the possibility of servicing clients with respect to shareholder derivative suits and other liability for information security "negligence" now that a standard has been articulated. It also meant that proactive litigation preparation was a possibility. (One Baker & McKenzie Partner, Gary Fresen did effectively nothing else but this stuff for Baker from 1996-1998). For the AICPA- it meant the possibility of including what was then thought of as a lucrative professional services practice (Information Security Consulting) in their consulting side offerings. All of the large accounting firms spawned an information security practice about 1995-1996 if they didn't already have risk management groups which could address the areas. Again, it was the threat of liability that drove all these developments, and hence at least partially drove the huge market for firewalls, PKI hype and (frankly) helped to make RSA what it is today. (What, you thought it was all Bidzos' genius?) The pattern has always been the same. Some clever 17 year old exposes weakness, exploits it. Papers go nuts. Shareholders whine and some sue. Insurance companies and auditors slowly take note, adjust standards. Market responds with new products and lots of hype. This is the evolution of security. Always has been. You think that Checkpoint Software got where it got because consumers suddenly wanted a bunch of innovation for no reason at all other than it was Monday afternoon and there was nothing interesting on www.memepool.com? > Peter Trei From declan at well.com Mon Aug 13 07:59:48 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:59:48 -0400 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messa ges. In-Reply-To: ; from ptrei@rsasecurity.com on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:30:14AM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20010813105948.A32201@cluebot.com> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:30:14AM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > I occasionally see the argument that NSA can't retain people due > to the much higher salaries, etc, in the public sector. While I have > no doubt that this is partially true, there are plenty of very good > people who find that the non-tangible benefits - patriotism, a sense > that one's work is important, that one is a trusted member of > the inner circle and privy to secret knowledge - are more than > enough to make up for a civil service paycheck. No one should > discount these factors just because they don't move them > themselves. Right. I know people who are NSA employees, technical ones, with surprisingly enviable jobs. They put in four 10 hour days and can count it as a week. In fact, because in some areas (system administrators, hardware techs) NSA has more people than they need, the people I know often stay home one extra day a week. So that's a three day work week, with a high-five figure salary, a security clearance that will instantly get you a better paid job in the consulting/contracting industry if you leave, and the security of government work. Not a job that'll let you change the world, perhaps, but not terribly dismal either. -Declan From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 13 11:14:05 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:14:05 -0700 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108131816.f7DIG5B01474@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 13, 2001, at 10:14 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: > [I hate to post something that makes it look as if I'm doing further > BU bashing (which is not my intention), but:...] > > When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There are > other groups which can apply pressure than lawyers, courts and Men > with Guns. Auditors and insurance companies come to mind. Schneier > has noted how improvements in safe (as in a secure metal box) > technology was driven not by losses, not by customers, nor by lawsuits, > but rather by insurance requirements. > > 'You're running your ecommerce site on IIS? Ok, that's 10% extra on your > premiums." (This is already starting to happen). I've been pointing this out for many years, and did so at very early Cypherpunks meetings. If you say Schneier "has noted" this, I'll take your word. The proper (moral, public choice theory, economically sound) approach is for those who want more security against theft to _pay_ for it. This through either their own choices, such as the choices I myself made for the type of gun safe I have in my house, or through the advice and pricing from their insurance companies. Holding a cheap safe maker "strictly liable" for loses when thieves use tin snips to cut through their safe is NOT the solution to the "strong safe" problem. Unfortunately, as Declan also notes, the "men with guns" tend to go for "do this or we will shoot you" solutions. I count mandatory air bags and seat belt laws in this category. Friedman's recent book "Law's Order" has many good economic analyses of tort situations, showing in nearly all cases that free market (mutually negotiated, noncoerced) produce more efficient results than non free market (imposed by government, coerced) solutions. Not surprising to libertarians, but useful to consider in the crypto context. Bringing strict liability into the world of security and crypto would result in the usual market distortions. As an example, one might expect a "recommended security standard," decided upon by industry committees (with government, probably the NSA, involvement). Like airbags, this would then be mandated to be included in all Net connectivity and related products. Vendors would scramble to meet this requirement. And probably some form of escrow ("to help resolve disputes," "for the children") would be mandated-in. And of course it probably couldn't be "too strong." Liability as currently interpreted can easily suppress innovation: Westinghouse froze the design of their boiling water nuclear reactors at roughly the 1960 level, except for minor changes in instrumentation and construction methods. The theory being that they had been given a kind of "safe harbor" on past designs (often done in conjunction with the Feds, as part of military reactor and AEC-led design projects) and that introducing innovations could alter the risk equation...even if it made the reactors better! Similarly, innovations in automobile design are suppressed by liability concerns. A car maker who improves the layout of gas and brake pedals faces lawsuits over accidents "caused" by the changes. (cf. "sudden acceleration," aka "nitwit stepped on the wrong pedal.") Peter Huber, in "Galileo's Revenge," notes many cases where strict liability law has suppressed innovation. My favorite was the Florida case where a woman claimed a CAT scan made her lose her psychic powers. A jury awarded her $2 million in liability damages. (This also mixes in pseudoscience issues, but the liability laws are still implicated.) And speaking of CAT scans, or NMR, PET, etc. scans, many hospitals now routinely order such scans in nearly all cases of minor injury. My father went in for an exam and the doctor recommended an NMR scan of some sort. My father asked why. The doctor: "Don't worry, your insurance will cover most of it." My father: "I asked why I need this." Doctor: "We really recommend it." To cut to the chase: Hospitals recommend such scans "just in case." To cover their asses in a possible liability suit should some problem happen later in time. Is this "due diligence"? Well, NMR scans are not cheap, so the cost gets passed on in the usual ways. Is the average benefit worth it to the average patient who gets the "we recommend it" advice? Debatable. Except there _IS_ no debate about it, certainly not between the average patient and the average doctor. BTW, my father said "No" to the doctor. The doctor argued, then gave up. Apparently he felt my father was exposing _him_ to strict liability. (Needless to say, a patient's "waiver" is challengeable in the usual ways: "I didn't know what I was signing," "The doctor didn't explain to me that the scan might have detected the tumor I now have," and the other usual Mommy State whines.) Anyway, I think imposing FDA-type oversight and medical industry-type liability laws on the security and crypto industry would be a disaster. Here's one of my articles from 1996 about this issue: * To: cypherpunks at toad.com * Subject: The public sees no need for crypto at this time * From: "Timothy C. May" * Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:25:00 -0800 * In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961121141010.006da9a4 at ix.netcom.com> * Sender: owner-cypherpunks at toad.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I believe that at this time the differential market value to customers of having strong crypto in telephones is near-zero, and in cell-phones is only slightly greater. My reasons will follow below. I'm explicitly discussing "things as they are" rather than "things as they should be." At 9:10 AM -0500 11/21/96, Clay Olbon II wrote: >I think we need to keep a couple of goals in mind. The first, is to get >encrypting phones (or phone add-ons) into Wal-mart, K-mart, etc (where >probably most Americans now buy their phones). The prices need to be low >enough that people will want to buy them (<$100?). Is this technically >feasible? The comsec device from the above URL already demonstrates the >needed capability. Is the cost target possible? My guess is soon, given >the lowering costs and increasing capabilities of current processors. While I would certainly _like_ to see wider use of crypto, and crypto deployed ubiquitously in products like telephones, cellphones, pagers, and, of course, computers and networks, I think any honest appraisal of market conditions must conclude that there is little _average American_ awareness of, or demand for, crypto. One could cite many reasons. Here are some that I see. (Note: I'm not saying these are true for me and thee, nor for everyone else. And these reasons may change with time. But for now, I think they're pretty accurate.) * Most people don't think they're targets of wiretapping. They don't think the FBI is tapping their phones, and they've never even heard of the NSA, let alone GCHQ, NRO, SDECE, etc. * "What have I got to hide?" * Given a choice to use ordinary phone lines or cordless handsets, with attendant ease-of-eavesdropping issues, they'll take the convenience of cordless handsets nearly every time. (And the 900 MHz increase-security cordless handsets are not yet in heavy demand...they'll succeed when they're as cheap as ordinary cordless phones.) * Security always takes some effort. The military can have it only by having elaborate protocols, checks and balances, and essentially full-time "crypto" personnel to go through the rigamarol of setting up secure communications and locking up key material according to elaborate procedures. (I like to cite the evolution of metal safes. Mosler Safe Company says the driving force behind safe design, and deployment to merchants and banks, was the _insurance business_. Instead of preaching about the value of increased security, the insurers--who knew how to take the long view--offered rate discounts if stronger safes were installed. Voila, stronger safes. Until similar incentives exist for data--e.g., insurance for loss of patient records, confidential dossiers, etc.--I doubt most people will listen to the "preaching.") * Look at how few people--myself included--routinely use crypto (digital signatures, etc.) here on this list! It is now "worth it" to me to digitally sign all messages. (Please, don't send me your personal experiences or your scripts for interfacing Pegasus Zapmail to PGP 2.8!) * Even those with secure phones--STU-IIIs and Clipperphones--admit that they rarely use the features. (Recall several stories where advocates of Clipper had to take the books and magazines piled up on top of their Clipperphones, dust them off, and try to remember how to initiate a secure conversation!) * And this raises the problem of: whom do you communicate with securely? If your friends and family don't have compatible hardware, what's the point? Sure, some corporations and enterprises will take the plunge and buy sets of units, but Joe Public will likely not, at least not until a critical mass of compatible crypto is installed...perhaps a decade or more from now. * In short, most people don't see the need. They're not doing things they think would warrant surveillance, and they have no experience with bad effects from wiretaps or whatnot. Just not on their list of things to worry about. And they don't want the additional confusion, learning, and incompatibility with what their friends and coworkers have. As to the larger issue of "edcucating the public," I think this is almost always an exhausting and fruitless task. Do-gooders have been trying this for decades, even longer. (Don't let me stop you, anyone. But I think it's unlikely that a new campaign to educate people about a potential risk that they have never seen any concrete evidence for in their own lives is going to do much.) When crypto is cheap enough, it may be a selling factor for a consumer making a choice. How much extra people are willing to pay is unclear. And there are "sophisticated users" who may pay extra for such features. And certainly there does not have to be "wide acceptance" for crypto to be deployed to the "point of no return" (hint: this is a more important goal to me than acceptance by Joe Public). For example, the SSL and SWAN stuff is incredibly important, because wide encryption of network traffic, even if Joe and Jane Public are not using crypto at home, means surveillance and vacuum-cleaner types of NSA monitoring are made ten thousand times more difficult. Which may be enough to secure for us the blessings of crypto anarchy. P.S. I'll be away at the Hackers Conference in Santa Rosa, CA for the next several days, and then travelling for the American holiday of Thanksgiving Day. So, I'll be mostly away from the list for a while. --Tim May >The second goal needs to be to push a similar product for cell-phones. I >think this will be perhaps an easier sell, given the higher initial cost for >these phones, and their reduced security. Perhaps a home device could be >sold with the cell-phone as a package deal, so that communications with the >"home base" (i.e your office, home, etc) would be secure. With the rapid >growth in cell-phone sales, selling a package such as this might ensure a >larger user-base of home devices. > >Given that these goals are met, I think widespread use of crypto over phone >lines would become almost inevitable. However, the fun part would be the >introduction of such products. The FUD coming from police, the government, >etc. would be amazing to behold. > > Clay > > > >******************************************************* >Clay Olbon olbon at ix.netcom.com >engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc. >**********************************************tanstaafl Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." From declan at well.com Mon Aug 13 08:31:48 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:31:48 -0400 Subject: FC: South Africa moves to increase Net-surveillance, limit encryption Message-ID: A quick summary of South Africa's "Interception and Monitoring" bill, which has cleared the Cabinet and is heading for a vote in the Parliament: * Internet providers and telephone companies must provide a pipe to a National Monitoring Center for Carnivoresque surveillance. "The Police Service, the Defence Force, the Agency, the Service and the Directorate must, at State expense, establish, equip, operate and maintain central monitoring centres... Duplicate signals of communications authorized to be monitored in terms of this Act, must be routed by the service provider concerned to the designated central monitoring centre concerned." * Internet providers may not "provide any telecommunication service which does not have the capacity to be monitored." A provider is responsible for "decrypting any communication encrypted by a customer if the facility for encryption was provided by the service provider concerned." This represents an attack on liberty, privacy, and autonomy, and is akin to anti-encryption rules in Russia a few years ago. Though as a practical matter, a lot would seem to turn on the definition of "provide." Does that mean giving someone an SSL-enabled web browser? IPv6 software? * The legislation bans the provision of anonymous Internet access. It says: "A service provider must... require from such person his or her full names, residential, business or postal address and identity number." * Internet providers and telcos must pay for their own surveillance. "A service provider must at own cost and within the period, if any, specified by the Minister of Communications in a directive referred to in subsection (4)(a), acquire the necessary facilities and devices to enable the monitoring of communications in terms of this Act. The investment, technical, maintenance and operating costs in enabling a telecommunication service to be monitored, must be carried by the service provider providing such a service." * Internet providers cannot reveal wiretaps. "No person who is or was concerned in the performance of any function in terms of this Act, may disclose any information which he or she obtained in the performance of such a function" (except to officials or courts). The text of the legislation is here: http://www.pmg.org.za/bills/Interception0107.htm -Declan ******* http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/africa/newsid_1484000/1484698.stm Protests over SA 'snooping' bill 2001-08-13 06:10:06 By Philippa Garson in Johannesburg Protests are growing in South Africa against the country's plan to give the security services new powers to monitor terrorists and serious criminals. Opponents say the Interception and Monitoring Bill is draconian, describing it as a charter for government snooping. Given only three weeks to make submissions on the Bill, non-government organisations have been making last-ditch attempts to garner more time to respond before the 13 August deadline. The bill was quietly passed by South Africa's Cabinet last month, largely catching the public unawares. It provides for state monitoring of all telecommunications systems, including mobile phones, internet and e-mail, once permission has been granted by relevant authorities. In most cases a judge must grant the order, but in some instances a police or army officer of a particular rank may do so. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From bear at sonic.net Mon Aug 13 11:43:12 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <001f01c12417$03f218d0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: >Do I think that software should have products liability attached to it? No. >Do I think strict liability stifles innovation? No. I would actually like to make a smaller point here. Broadly I agree with BU, but I'd like to analyze it a little. If software actually cost money per every unit produced, products liability would make more sense because then it could become "part of" the production costs. However, given that copying bits is in fact free (copyright issues aside), adding a real per-unit expense has the potential to *dominate* the production cost. Open-source software would become impossible to produce, because the whole open-source paradigm depends on copying bits being free. I think MS would like nothing better than having products liability attached to software in general; it would solve a massive problem for them by putting open-source stuff out of production. Even though the open-source stuff is better from a security standpoint, there is effectively no one who is making enough money from it to bear the costs of product liability. Some security consultants *do* bear the cost of product liability on software they install and configure; they are paid obscene amounts of money to take that risk and do the solid configurations that minimize it, and that is as should be. The effect of product liability on the industry as a whole would be to remove the only secure products available (open-source products), making it effectively impossible for security consultants to do their jobs. Bear From declan at well.com Mon Aug 13 08:48:22 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:48:22 -0400 Subject: FC: Rand report: Facecams can thwart terrorism, install them now! Message-ID: [I've copied the author of the paper, a Rand analyst named John Woodward. He is an attorney who lives in Virginia and was most recently a CIA operations officer for 12 years, according to his bio, in addition to being the CIA Staff Assistant to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon. --Declan] ******** From declan at well.com Mon Aug 13 09:08:39 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:08:39 -0400 Subject: South Africa moves to increase Net-surveillance, limit crypto Message-ID: <20010813120838.A2040@cluebot.com> ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh ----- From declan at well.com Mon Aug 13 09:09:11 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:09:11 -0400 Subject: Rand report: Facecams can thwart terrorism, install them now! Message-ID: <20010813120911.B2040@cluebot.com> ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh ----- From georgemw at speakeasy.net Mon Aug 13 12:34:54 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:34:54 -0700 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. In-Reply-To: <001f01c12417$03f218d0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B77C96E.3817.CDB9C4@localhost> On 13 Aug 2001, at 9:42, Black Unicorn wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eugene Leitl" > To: "Trei, Peter" > Cc: ; "Faustine" ; > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:49 AM > Subject: RE: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. > > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > > > I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least > > > at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there > > > will be little or no improvement in the situation. > > > > I think this is the wrong approach to the situation. Making people liable > > stifles innovation. > > I think 30+ years of active products liability jurisprudence might disagree > with you. Just in the automotive world and off the top of my head: Automatic > Breaking Systems, designed failure points (crumple zones), 6mph bumpers, > "safety glass," shoulder belts, passive belts, air bags and a host of other > technologies or innovations that may or may not have been developed "but for" > litigation are most probably the result of strict liability in products > liability cases. Well, nobody can say with certainty exactly what would have happened in contrary-to-fact situations, and litigation will probably encourage some innovations while discouraging others, but it seems to me that litigation is highly unlikely to encourage innovation overall; it seems to me that you are much more likely to lose a case if your product is hazardous in a way that distinguishes itself from the industry standard, even if it's safer overall, and in any case most potential innovations don't have anything to do with increasing safety. In a more or less unregulated market, consumers are free to value product safety as they choose. Legislation which, say, mandates air bags appears to assume that consumers tend to undervalue their own safety, a proposition I object to on philosophical grounds. Liability works more or less the same way. >The effect is to make safety profitable- or more accurately, > to make unsafety unprofitable. Right. Safety at all costs. The cost of safety is already too high in most industries IMNSHO. > See generally Posner, Hallman and the "Chicago > School of Law and Economics," an entire movement in legal thought centered on > the idea that you are very wrong about the effect of liability on innovation. > An entire movement dedicated to the idea that Eugene is very wrong? Now I'm jealous, I can be as wrong as him, wronger even. > Now less I be misinterpreted, misworded, misquoted and misunderstood by the > various misanthropic types here: > > Do I think that software should have products liability attached to it? No. > Do I think strict liability stifles innovation? No. > > On behalf of my fellow misanthropes, thanks for the clarification. George From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 13 03:39:24 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:39:24 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Cell Phone Gun In-Reply-To: <200108131006.GAA30940@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > Thanks to Interesting People and Matthew Gaylor here is the > ABC News report of December 6, 2000, on the cell phone gun: > > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/phone001205.html What's the big deal? A polished, greased metal thorn, spool of carbon and/or kevlar tape, epoxy resin, electrically ignited pyrocharge (crushed minibulb with intact filament), trigger switch with a cover slip, maybe coded if you want to get real fancy, lithium cell, capacitor. There's not enough metal in the thing to trigger the metal detector, it can look as about anything (flashlight preferrable). From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Mon Aug 13 10:14:10 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:14:10 -0400 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: ... Message-ID: > Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] > > From: "Eugene Leitl" > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > > > I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least > > > at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there > > > will be little or no improvement in the situation. > > > > I think this is the wrong approach to the situation. Making people > liable > > stifles innovation. > > I think 30+ years of active products liability jurisprudence might > disagree > with you. Just in the automotive world and off the top of my head: > Automatic > Breaking Systems, designed failure points (crumple zones), 6mph bumpers, > "safety glass," shoulder belts, passive belts, air bags and a host of > other > technologies or innovations that may or may not have been developed "but > for" > litigation are most probably the result of strict liability in products > liability cases. The effect is to make safety profitable- or more > accurately, > to make unsafety unprofitable. See generally Posner, Hallman and the > "Chicago > School of Law and Economics," an entire movement in legal thought centered > on > the idea that you are very wrong about the effect of liability on > innovation. > > Now less I be misinterpreted, misworded, misquoted and misunderstood by > the > various misanthropic types here: > > Do I think that software should have products liability attached to it? > No. > Do I think strict liability stifles innovation? No. > [I hate to post something that makes it look as if I'm doing further BU bashing (which is not my intention), but:...] When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There are other groups which can apply pressure than lawyers, courts and Men with Guns. Auditors and insurance companies come to mind. Schneier has noted how improvements in safe (as in a secure metal box) technology was driven not by losses, not by customers, nor by lawsuits, but rather by insurance requirements. 'You're running your ecommerce site on IIS? Ok, that's 10% extra on your premiums." (This is already starting to happen). Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Mon Aug 13 10:14:10 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:14:10 -0400 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: ... Message-ID: > Black Unicorn[SMTP:unicorn at schloss.li] > > From: "Eugene Leitl" > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > > > I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least > > > at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there > > > will be little or no improvement in the situation. > > > > I think this is the wrong approach to the situation. Making people > liable > > stifles innovation. > > I think 30+ years of active products liability jurisprudence might > disagree > with you. Just in the automotive world and off the top of my head: > Automatic > Breaking Systems, designed failure points (crumple zones), 6mph bumpers, > "safety glass," shoulder belts, passive belts, air bags and a host of > other > technologies or innovations that may or may not have been developed "but > for" > litigation are most probably the result of strict liability in products > liability cases. The effect is to make safety profitable- or more > accurately, > to make unsafety unprofitable. See generally Posner, Hallman and the > "Chicago > School of Law and Economics," an entire movement in legal thought centered > on > the idea that you are very wrong about the effect of liability on > innovation. > > Now less I be misinterpreted, misworded, misquoted and misunderstood by > the > various misanthropic types here: > > Do I think that software should have products liability attached to it? > No. > Do I think strict liability stifles innovation? No. > [I hate to post something that makes it look as if I'm doing further BU bashing (which is not my intention), but:...] When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There are other groups which can apply pressure than lawyers, courts and Men with Guns. Auditors and insurance companies come to mind. Schneier has noted how improvements in safe (as in a secure metal box) technology was driven not by losses, not by customers, nor by lawsuits, but rather by insurance requirements. 'You're running your ecommerce site on IIS? Ok, that's 10% extra on your premiums." (This is already starting to happen). Peter Trei From info at giganetstore.com Mon Aug 13 05:24:08 2001 From: info at giganetstore.com (info at giganetstore.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:24:08 +0100 Subject: 1.000$00 em chamadas Novis Message-ID: <0045a0824120d81WWWSHOPENS@wwwshopens.giganetstore.com> Adira ao plano Voz Familiar da Novis, fale a 5$00 por minuto e ainda ganhe 1.000$00 em chamadas Ao aderir ao serviço Voz Familiar da Novis através da Giganetstore.com, para além das vantagens do serviço, usufrui ainda de uma oferta de 1.000$00 (IVA incluído) em chamadas Novis. Com o serviço Voz Familiar da Novis usufrui sempre das seguintes vantagens: Os melhores preços quando mais fala 5$00/minuto (IVA incluído) nas chamadas à noite e fins-de-semana para o mesmo indicativo, para além de 1 tarifário muito competitivo nas restantes chamadas. Paga apenas o que falar Não tem consumo mínimo obrigatório, assinatura mensal e nem tem que mudar o telefone. Com a Novis não paga os habituais 16$00+IVA no período inicial da chamada, especialmente penalizantes em chamadas de curta duração ou faxes. Total simplicidade Todas as suas chamadas serão automaticamente encaminhadas pela Novis Sem compromisso Pode realizar chamadas através de outros operadores da rede fixa, desde que marque o respectivo prefixo. Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site giganetstore.com , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6820 bytes Desc: not available URL: From unicorn at schloss.li Mon Aug 13 13:33:38 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:33:38 -0700 Subject: More Liability Issues. Was: Re: Products Liability and Innovation. References: <3B77C96E.3817.CDB9C4@localhost> Message-ID: <002601c12437$43eea8c0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 12:34 PM Subject: Re: Products Liability and Innovation. > On 13 Aug 2001, at 9:42, Black Unicorn wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eugene Leitl" > > To: "Trei, Peter" > > Cc: ; "Faustine" ; > > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:49 AM > > Subject: RE: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. > > > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > > > > > I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least > > > > at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there > > > > will be little or no improvement in the situation. > > > > > > I think this is the wrong approach to the situation. Making people liable > > > stifles innovation. > > > > I think 30+ years of active products liability jurisprudence might disagree > > with you. Just in the automotive world and off the top of my head: Automatic > > Breaking Systems, designed failure points (crumple zones), 6mph bumpers, > > "safety glass," shoulder belts, passive belts, air bags and a host of other > > technologies or innovations that may or may not have been developed "but for" > > litigation are most probably the result of strict liability in products > > liability cases. > > Well, nobody can say with certainty exactly what would have > happened in contrary-to-fact situations, and litigation will > probably encourage some innovations while discouraging others, Points all taken. > but it seems to me that litigation is highly unlikely to encourage > innovation overall; it seems to me that you are much more likely to > lose a case if your product is hazardous in a way that > distinguishes itself from the industry standard, even if it's > safer overall, and in any case most potential innovations don't > have anything to do with increasing safety. Points also taken. > In a more or less unregulated market, consumers are > free to value product safety as they choose. Legislation which, > say, mandates air bags appears to assume that consumers tend > to undervalue their own safety, a proposition I object to > on philosophical grounds. Liability works more or less the same > way. Think of it this way. The proposition that the strict liability doctrine makes is that certain activities are "ultra hazardous." One of these is product design. Strict liability- essentially the proposition that no showing of negligence is required for the plaintiff to prevail- is generally thought of as a mechanism to allocate the risk onto the market actor. Economically speaking this is intended to spur the innovator to "self insure" or to design safety (safety from litigation anyhow) into the product, or at least have a strong regard for it during the development process. This in contrast to the negligence standard- where the innovator has to have been shown to be willfully negligent in design and therefore a good portion of the risk of the product development is shifted back to the end user. The theory is that if your goal is to reduce accidents and claims you allow the market to incorporate that sort of risk (which in early innovation looks a lot like an externality) into the innovation process. Activities, it is argued, which cannot be made sufficiently safe to be economically viable in the market will not be undertaken because the market will not support such activities. Proponents of products liability point to this in justifying the policy. (Critics primarily point to the unfairness of assigning liability to actors who have not acted negligently). The showing for a plaintiff for products liability works something like this, although admittedly this is very simplified: 1. Plaintiff used the product according to directions. 2. Plaintiff was injured. That's pretty much it. This is why safety is a big deal in automobile design and why gun manufacturers have managed to duck major products liability issues for the most part (misuse). Since automobile design flaws of sufficient magnitude can cause death and big money law suits, the market has incorporated that component of the risk into the design cost of the product either ex ante (during the design process) or ex post (by compensating the aggrieved parties). Costs are shifted onto the market when they are passed on (ex ante or ex post) in the form of product cost. This is the way that strict liability specifically, and the legal process in general, tends to spur on innovation. > >The effect is to make safety profitable- or more accurately, > > to make unsafety unprofitable. > > Right. Safety at all costs. The cost of safety is already too > high in most industries IMNSHO. Well, I would argue that it is self adjusted by the market when we are talking about products liability. The market has put a price on safety by forcing producers either to design safe, and limit ex post costs incurred by litigation in favor of ex ante costs, or minimize safety spending and catch the costs ex post. Either way the costs are spread over the market and at least mostly linked to the actual effect of safety provisions in reducing harm/accidents/etc. If a mini-van is too costly to make "safe" then it will not be produced. That's the point of strict liability. Force the actor to spend more time evaluating the wisdom of the action. This often necessitates more R&D and hence more innovation. (Faster airbags, better seat belts, etc.) Saying "the cost of safety is already too high" is probably misplaced- at least in this isolated example of automotive manufacture. Mr. May says in a related post: > Bringing strict liability into the world of security and crypto would > result in the usual market distortions. As an example, one might expect > a "recommended security standard," decided upon by industry committees > (with government, probably the NSA, involvement). Like airbags, this > would then be mandated to be included in all Net connectivity and > related products. Vendors would scramble to meet this requirement. And > probably some form of escrow ("to help resolve disputes," "for the > children") would be mandated-in. And of course it probably couldn't be > "too strong." Standards only really come into play in a negligence, as opposed to strict liability, setting. With strict liability standards are not part of the discussion. For software or security the strict liability argument by the plaintiff would go: 1. Plaintiff installed Firewall 1 correctly. 2. Plaintiff was hacked. Liability insues. (This is an obvious simplification, but not by much). All of Mr. May's other points are valid. Even the imposition of a general standard for negligence (the reasonable sysadmin standard?) would be a bit of a headache. I'm a little surprised we haven't seen more of this because it effectively means that the first big case where someone sues on infosec grounds will require the court to DEVISE a standard. That would be bad. Very bad. As it stands now big firms can blame their auditors. "But we DID a SAS70, what more could we have done" and probably get off scott free. As for strict liability, this would be an absolute disaster, which is why I don't expect to see it ever applied. (Stranger things have happened though). This liability issue has been batted around the list a few times over the last couple (many) years. I found this bit which I wrote about strict liability to the list back in 1996: > A lot of the decision whether to apply strict liability or negligence is > going to be based on where you believe the costs should be shifted. > Strict liability shifts the costs onto the person engaging the activity. > The actor will increase his own costs to the extent he can still conduct > the activity and still reduce the number of times he is called into court > and damages are awarded against him. He will, of course, take no more > care than his damages might be. [...] > It's interesting to note the argument that in the age of insurance, it > really makes no difference who you put the costs on as society as a whole > ends up footing the bill anyway. The more things change... > > See generally Posner, Hallman and the "Chicago > > School of Law and Economics," an entire movement in legal thought centered on > > the idea that you are very wrong about the effect of liability on innovation. > > An entire movement dedicated to the idea that Eugene is > very wrong? Now I'm jealous, I can be as wrong as him, > wronger even. Well, in so far as he was standing for the concept that innovation was in no way ever connected to litigation, the Chicago School would disagree with him quite sternly. (The Chicago School is unamused?) > > Now less I be misinterpreted, misworded, misquoted and misunderstood by the > > various misanthropic types here: > > > > Do I think that software should have products liability attached to it? No. > > Do I think strict liability stifles innovation? No. > > On behalf of my fellow misanthropes, thanks for the clarification. Sure. Anything I can do to help further the understanding of misanthropes on the list, I am happy to do. > George From amaha at vsnl.net Mon Aug 13 12:29:30 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:29:30 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108131929.f7DJTTi31541@ak47.algebra.com> Success is the maximum utilisation of the ability that you have. --Zig Ziglar ============================================================ Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period of 60 days+.We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will make your life peaceful,successful & happy in a way you had never imagined before. If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy From declan at well.com Mon Aug 13 12:22:05 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:22:05 -0400 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: ... In-Reply-To: ; from ptrei@rsasecurity.com on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 01:14:10PM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20010813152205.A6626@cluebot.com> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 01:14:10PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > other groups which can apply pressure than lawyers, courts and Men > with Guns. Auditors and insurance companies come to mind. Schneier > has noted how improvements in safe (as in a secure metal box) > technology was driven not by losses, not by customers, nor by lawsuits, > but rather by insurance requirements. Minor note: I'd argue that insurance requirements, in a free market, are in the end driven by losses or prospective losses. -Declan From mariaste at etransmail2.com Mon Aug 13 16:27:08 2001 From: mariaste at etransmail2.com (Maria Stevens) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:27:08 -0700 Subject: From Office Depot: "Net-To-Zero" Message-ID: <200108150403.f7F43FU10872@ak47.algebra.com> If you cannot view this message, please visit http://www.globalzon2k.com/odwebcom1.html Get $49.99 Cash Back on Web Commerce 2001! Globazon sent this email to inform you of a special retail promotion. You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com Now at Office Depot Buy Web Commerce 2001 for $0 after $49.99 cash back! Purchase Web Commerce 2001 between August 10, 2001 and September 15, 2001 at Office Depot and receive a $49.99 rebate. Click here for complete rebate details . VersaCheck Web Commerce 2001 VersaCheck Web Commerce 2001 box The Only Professional eBusiness Software with Real-Time Credit Card Processing Built in! * Automatically create a shopping cart with real-time credit card processing built in! * Includes FREE Hosting Plan - no preset time limit! * Seamlessly integrates with existing home pages! * Create a professional-looking online storefront and easily customize fonts, graphics, and pricing at any time. Product details . Special offer from G7: FREE Products! Shipped in Full Retail Packaging Pick up to 5 of each! Fortune. (149.99 value) DataScan (149.99 value) eXpressForms 2000 (129.99 value) TransForm Personal (59.99 value) VersaClips (19.99 value) ? Fortune: Relationship manager and addressbook ? DataScan: Business card and telephone directory scanning software ? ExpressForms 2000: Forms, Invitation and Greeting Card generator to publish on the Internet. ? TransForm Personal: Scan and convert your paper forms into editable electronic forms in seconds. ? VersaClips: Accentuate your checks, website and documents with handcrafted background images. Click on any of the graphics above to add your FREE products! Please call 800-303-2620 for questions or assistance regarding this offer. Thank you very much. Best regards, Maria Stevens Customer Relationship Executive 800-303-2620 To change your communication preferences Click Here or simply reply to this E-mail with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. Copyright © G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 14722 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 13 14:40:00 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:40:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: chip fabs gearing up for AES (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:35:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "P.J. Ponder" To: cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: chip fabs gearing up for AES spotted this article at EE-Times: Encryption cores ramp for pervasive security By Patrick Mannion EE Times (08/09/01, 6:36 p.m. EST) MANHASSET, N.Y. while looking at another article (as noted in Slashdot) in the same issue about Rice Univ. undergrad Adam Stubblefield breaking WEP while interning at AT&T Labs. AES in the chips: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010809S0046 couple of quotes: With subtle distinctions, intellectual-property (IP) core vendors are readying implementations of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) security algorithm. The vendors, established and startup, are banking on applications from miniature wireless devices to massively parallel Web servers to support the rapid and pervasive deployment of encryption-enabled devices and systems. The plethora of available AES solutions "is not particularly surprising," said Duncan Kitchin, product architect in the wireless LAN operation at Intel Corp. (Hillsboro, Ore.). "After all, the whole point of choosing AES was that it was pretty efficient in software, and easily implementable in hardware," he said. "It's perfectly possible - it's just a matter of doing it." AES - which uses the Rijndael algorithm - was chosen by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to replace the highly popular but less-efficient data encryption standard (DES). It's the efficiency of AES and its stronger encryption overall that makes it attractive across a wide swath of applications. the other article - Adam Stubblefield breaks WEP: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010808S0042 --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 13 07:49:09 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:49:09 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <"F504A8CEE925D411AF4A00508B8BE90A01E908CD@exna07.securityd yn amics.com"> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Trei, Peter wrote: > I hate to say this, but until software developers are held (at least > at the corporate level) in some way liable for their failures, there > will be little or no improvement in the situation. I think this is the wrong approach to the situation. Making people liable stifles innovation. The customers abundantly prove that they don't care. I know it, because I've talked to the customers. They might complain, but in a curiously perfunctory manner, their lips move, but their neurons don't spike. In the market, everybody is free to use more stable components for the mission critical systems. If they make a difference (apparently, not on the short run, if at all, since businesses are either operating in a largely brownian market, or are running in an irrational regime, since capable to afford very broad error margins), the marketplace will select for fitter products. If they do not, well, too bad. Where people's life are at stake the product as a whole is certified, and the producer is already liable. There's no point in introducing a Hippocrates oath for the code samurai in the field. There will be fewer programmers, the average programmer will be better, but you're paying by arresting progress. See small civilian aircraft for an illustration. If you're afraid of change, the customer eventually suffers. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Mon Aug 13 16:51:24 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Terrorist and Pedophiles Message-ID: <200108132351.f7DNpPk01120@artifact.psychedelic.net> Declan forwards: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20966.html > Think tank urges face-scanning of the masses > Chief among these are the detection of terrorists and pedophiles, as we > said. No matter that these sick individuals comprise a mere fraction of > a fraction of normal human beings. > No matter that detecting them requires the most outrageous government > intrusions into the natural comings and goings of millions of innocent > people. Of course this is nonsense. Regarding terrorists. Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist" as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence opinion. Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens. Our government has suggested such defining characteristics of "terrorists" as a knowlege of the Constitution, and self-identification as a "patriot," It's pretty clear whom our government considers to be the terrorists, and it ain't fereigners. Regarding pedophiles. It's a rare disorder, there are only a few tens of thousands of them on the planet, and most of them, like most other people, conform their sexual behavior to society's expectations. Of course, to get called a pedophile these days, all one has to do is to criticize the Sex Abuse Agenda, and neurotic women will line up for blocks to spew forth detailed scenarios on all the kids you've molested, crafted entirely from their Child Sex Hysteric imaginations. As the clued know, most sexual assaults on children are crimes of opportunity, and have nothing to do with pedophiles. It would make pretty much zero change in the safety of children to jail all pedophiles. Since most of the loons on the far right pushing the anti-Porn and Sex Abuse Agendas have an attitute towards childrens' rights which is summarized by the statement - "Children don't have any rights" - one might argue on the other hand that the lives of children could be improved immensely by jailing the Abuse Hysteria Whackos. Don't suppose we'll be seeing the Rand Corporation recommending that anytime soon. > Of course, no appeal to Fascism and Kafkaesque control would be complete > without reference to the safety of innocent children. Rand does not let > us down: "many parents would most likely feel safer knowing their > children's elementary school had a facial recognition system to ensure > that convicted child molesters were not granted access to school > grounds." Of course, statistics easily show that the most dangerous place for a child is at home, at the mercy of his parents, with no witnesses present. One has to seriously wonder if the fondness of parents for pedophile scapegoating has a lot to do with the wish to divert child-protection resources onto a form of abuse that is largely fictional. After all, we don't see these parents out demonstrating when kids are kicked with combat boots and forced to ingest mud at boot camp. > It's all very popular, but immensely dangerous, thinking. Preserving > personal liberty requires that we all accept a bit of chaos, a bit of > hooliganism, a bit of risk. Yes, you or I might possibly get our heads > bashed in by brain-dead hooligans, or get blown up by terrorist bombers, > and our little lambs might get exploited by sexual sickos if we don't > keep a close eye on them. But probably not. Leaders rarely have to fear freedom and democracy, because all they have to do to get their absolute power back is rock the boat a little, and the Sheeple will run begging to give up their rights. "Please, give us face recognition so our homes will not be blown up, and our children will not be diddled by weirdos. Where do we sign up?" > Surely, the suffocating, risk-free environments our governments are > trying so desperately to sell us to extend their powers of observation > and control are far more grotesque and soul-destroying than anything a > terrorist or a pedophile might ever hope to produce. . One might think so, but such critical thought requires the idiots to turn their brain cell on for a few hours each day. Too much work, when they can just sit in front of the tube, and be told what to think by John Walsh and friends. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 13 14:54:14 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:54:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <001f01c12417$03f218d0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: > I think 30+ years of active products liability jurisprudence might disagree > with you. Just in the automotive world and off the top of my head: Automatic > Breaking Systems, designed failure points (crumple zones), 6mph bumpers, > "safety glass," shoulder belts, passive belts, air bags and a host of other > technologies or innovations that may or may not have been developed "but for" > litigation are most probably the result of strict liability in products > liability cases. Actually almost every one of these examples were DEVELOPED either 'out of the blue' by the industry or by the 'off-road/racing' groups, not by any factor related to litigation (though their ACCEPTANCE in the regular consumer market was - thought those are not the same beaties by a long shot). Most definitely these were NOT in responce to litigation. ABS - Road racing cars (ala Le Mans) Crumple Zones - Indy style racing and aircraft Safety Glass - invented in the 20's, in responce to accidents not lawyers Shoulder/passive belts - racing since the turn of the century Bumpers and air bags being the primary exception in your examples. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 13 14:58:08 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:58:08 -0500 Subject: Smart Motorist - Air Bag Safety Facts Message-ID: <3B784D70.E57C7863@ssz.com> http://www.smartmotorist.com/air/air.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From _changeyourlife at excite.com Mon Aug 13 17:10:23 2001 From: _changeyourlife at excite.com (_changeyourlife at excite.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:10:23 Subject: You have 3 new people in your downline Message-ID: <200108132114.FAA0000019839@cylis.lib.cycu.edu.tw> Removal Instructions are at the end of this letter. Thank you. Dear Friend, Would you like to make an extra $4,250 a month without selling anything to anyone? Wouldn't this kind of Extra Income take a lot of the pressure off of you? You too can start earning money from the comfort of your home as soon as you stop dreaming about it and Take Action to make it happen! You don't have to be a fancy salesman, you don't even have to own a computer to be successful with our program. We will even place the first 3 people in your downline for you to offer you a successful start. All you need is a strong desire to get out of the rat race and start earning what you are really worth and you are on your way to building life-time residual income for you and your loved ones. We will only be accepting the first 27 people who respond to this email. So reply to this email for more info today! For complete details about this incredible offer, please click on this link http://dreamteam2001.nic20.com/ or respond to this letter with the subject line "More Info Residual Income " and Let's get started making all your dreams come true. We'll see you at the Top Beah' and Rob Berry Remember, life is short so eat dessert first and never, ever allow anyone to steal your dreams away from you. You are receiving this message because you have either subscribed to one of my ffa-pages, newsletters or we have corresponded in the past. I respect your privacy. If you do not wish to receive any further messages or updates, please respond to this e-mail with the subject line "remove" and we will immediately remove your e-mail address from our database. To speed up your remove request please make sure you place the word remove in the Subject Line, not in the body of the e-mail. Thank you. From _changeyourlife at excite.com Mon Aug 13 17:10:33 2001 From: _changeyourlife at excite.com (_changeyourlife at excite.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:10:33 Subject: You have 3 new people in your downline Message-ID: <200108132114.FAA0000020903@cylis.lib.cycu.edu.tw> Removal Instructions are at the end of this letter. Thank you. Dear Friend, Would you like to make an extra $4,250 a month without selling anything to anyone? Wouldn't this kind of Extra Income take a lot of the pressure off of you? You too can start earning money from the comfort of your home as soon as you stop dreaming about it and Take Action to make it happen! You don't have to be a fancy salesman, you don't even have to own a computer to be successful with our program. We will even place the first 3 people in your downline for you to offer you a successful start. All you need is a strong desire to get out of the rat race and start earning what you are really worth and you are on your way to building life-time residual income for you and your loved ones. We will only be accepting the first 27 people who respond to this email. So reply to this email for more info today! For complete details about this incredible offer, please click on this link http://dreamteam2001.nic20.com/ or respond to this letter with the subject line "More Info Residual Income " and Let's get started making all your dreams come true. We'll see you at the Top Beah' and Rob Berry Remember, life is short so eat dessert first and never, ever allow anyone to steal your dreams away from you. You are receiving this message because you have either subscribed to one of my ffa-pages, newsletters or we have corresponded in the past. I respect your privacy. If you do not wish to receive any further messages or updates, please respond to this e-mail with the subject line "remove" and we will immediately remove your e-mail address from our database. To speed up your remove request please make sure you place the word remove in the Subject Line, not in the body of the e-mail. Thank you. From _changeyourlife at excite.com Mon Aug 13 17:10:36 2001 From: _changeyourlife at excite.com (_changeyourlife at excite.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:10:36 Subject: You have 3 new people in your downline Message-ID: <200108132114.OAA10318@toad.com> Removal Instructions are at the end of this letter. Thank you. Dear Friend, Would you like to make an extra $4,250 a month without selling anything to anyone? Wouldn't this kind of Extra Income take a lot of the pressure off of you? You too can start earning money from the comfort of your home as soon as you stop dreaming about it and Take Action to make it happen! You don't have to be a fancy salesman, you don't even have to own a computer to be successful with our program. We will even place the first 3 people in your downline for you to offer you a successful start. All you need is a strong desire to get out of the rat race and start earning what you are really worth and you are on your way to building life-time residual income for you and your loved ones. We will only be accepting the first 27 people who respond to this email. So reply to this email for more info today! For complete details about this incredible offer, please click on this link http://dreamteam2001.nic20.com/ or respond to this letter with the subject line "More Info Residual Income " and Let's get started making all your dreams come true. We'll see you at the Top Beah' and Rob Berry Remember, life is short so eat dessert first and never, ever allow anyone to steal your dreams away from you. You are receiving this message because you have either subscribed to one of my ffa-pages, newsletters or we have corresponded in the past. I respect your privacy. If you do not wish to receive any further messages or updates, please respond to this e-mail with the subject line "remove" and we will immediately remove your e-mail address from our database. To speed up your remove request please make sure you place the word remove in the Subject Line, not in the body of the e-mail. Thank you. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 13 15:17:28 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:17:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Bangalore Cypherpunks August 2001 Physical Meeting Announcement (fwd) Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 2219 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Opt_In3032 at aol.com Mon Aug 13 17:18:01 2001 From: Opt_In3032 at aol.com (Opt_In3032 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:18:01 Subject: What it takes to Make Money in MLM Message-ID: <200108132125.f7DLPWJ28268@www.iPodion.at> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2507 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mmotyka at lsil.com Mon Aug 13 17:41:18 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:41:18 -0700 Subject: chip fabs gearing up for AES (fwd) Message-ID: <3B7873AE.43E4866E@lsil.com> "Doc Evil" wrote : >> With subtle distinctions, intellectual-property (IP) core vendors are >> readying implementations of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) >> security algorithm. > >This author needs to get a clue. There is only one form of >intellectual property, which is the trademark, and trademarks won't >benefit from encryption. Copyrights are "held", not "owned". >Copyrights expire; property doesn't. Copyrights exist to reward the >production of artisitic or literary material, as a public benefit. >Property rights exist for their owners. > >The term "intellectual property" must have been invented by the same >PR genius who invented the terms "freeway" and "Social Security". > It's a matter of context. In the chip world a tested netlist that can be turned into Si is "IP" in the sense that it is something a company can offer as a product. AES is no different from USB, bluetooth, IEEE-1384, SCSI, 802.11b, MPEG, PCI cores etc. Yes, actual work is involved in turning a public standard into Si. Yes, people actually pay to include this sort of "IP" in their ASICs along with CPUs, memory, I/O and whatever else they may need to fuel their cash flow. Various licenses may or may not be part of each piece of "IP" used in an ASIC. Each has to be addressed before the part is built or your lawyers can fight it out later in court. I'm more of a SW than a HW guy but this is pretty much the view I've gotten of the business. Mike From mmotyka at lsil.com Mon Aug 13 17:45:25 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:45:25 -0700 Subject: chip fabs gearing up for AES (fwd) Message-ID: <3B7874A5.6A6DDD8@lsil.com> Jim Choate wrote : >On 13 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > >> Copyrights expire; property doesn't. > >Never bought milk I guess, or a pet, or been to the beach.... > Surprised you didn't quote the classic about beer...you know, you can't own beer you can only rent it. Why do those dipshits who lose the big beach houses in NC when a nice hurricane comes through get to file for federal disaster aid? That's very, very wrong. Mike From Opt_In810 at aol.com Mon Aug 13 17:50:26 2001 From: Opt_In810 at aol.com (Opt_In810 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:50:26 Subject: What it takes to Make Money in MLM Message-ID: <200108132157.f7DLvwh30511@www.iPodion.at> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2515 bytes Desc: not available URL: From georgemw at speakeasy.net Mon Aug 13 17:55:03 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:55:03 -0700 Subject: More Liability Issues. Was: Re: Products Liability and Innovation. In-Reply-To: <002601c12437$43eea8c0$2d010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <3B781477.2230.1F2D2EF@localhost> On 13 Aug 2001, at 13:33, Black Unicorn wrote: > The theory is that if your goal is to reduce accidents and claims you allow > the market to incorporate that sort of risk (which in early innovation looks a > lot like an externality) into the innovation process. Activities, it is > argued, which cannot be made sufficiently safe to be economically viable in > the market will not be undertaken because the market will not support such > activities. Strikes me as being a circular argument, since which activities are "sufficiently safe to be economically viable" depends on the size of the awards. > Proponents of products liability point to this in justifying the > policy. (Critics primarily point to the unfairness of assigning liability to > actors who have not acted negligently). > Less misanthropic ones, maybe. We more misanthropic critics are more likely to complain about being prevented from engaging activities which we know damn well contain an element of risk, a risk we are willing to assume because in our judgement the benefits outweigh the risks. > The showing for a plaintiff for products liability works something like this, > although admittedly this is very simplified: > > 1. Plaintiff used the product according to directions. > 2. Plaintiff was injured. > > That's pretty much it. This is why safety is a big deal in automobile design > and why gun manufacturers have managed to duck major products liability issues > for the most part (misuse). Since automobile design flaws of sufficient > magnitude can cause death and big money law suits, the market has incorporated > that component of the risk into the design cost of the product either ex ante > (during the design process) or ex post (by compensating the aggrieved > parties). Costs are shifted onto the market when they are passed on (ex ante > or ex post) in the form of product cost. I had to read this about a dozen times before it made sense to me, here's why: there's an implicit assumption here that the "damages" awarded in liability lawsuits acurately reflects the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff. The impression I get is that awards tend to be orders of magnitude larger than they should be. > > This is the way that strict liability specifically, and the legal process in > general, tends to spur on innovation. > > > >The effect is to make safety profitable- or more accurately, > > > to make unsafety unprofitable. > > > > Right. Safety at all costs. The cost of safety is already too > > high in most industries IMNSHO. > > Well, I would argue that it is self adjusted by the market when we are talking > about products liability. The market has put a price on safety by forcing > producers either to design safe, and limit ex post costs incurred by > litigation in favor of ex ante costs, or minimize safety spending and catch > the costs ex post. Either way the costs are spread over the market and at > least mostly linked to the actual effect of safety provisions in reducing > harm/accidents/etc. If a mini-van is too costly to make "safe" then it will > not be produced. That's the point of strict liability. Force the actor to > spend more time evaluating the wisdom of the action. This often necessitates > more R&D and hence more innovation. (Faster airbags, better seat belts, etc.) > Saying "the cost of safety is already too high" is probably misplaced- at > least in this isolated example of automotive manufacture. > I really don't think so. I think we're at the point where around 10-50 million dollars are spent per life saved, and I don't think most people are worth anything near that. I wouldn't even value my own life that highly; that is to say, I probably wouldn't take certain death for 50 million, because I'm not sure what I'd spend the money on if I were dead, booze and hookers would do me no good, but I'd probably take a 10% chance of death for 5 million. I suspect when you do the economical analysis, if you assume your damages awarded actually equal damages suffered, with strict liability you end up with the same products on the market and the same corporate profits as you would in a world where you assume no strict liability but that assume customers are able to correctly evaluate risks in their purchasing decisions, the main difference being that with strict liability the costs are smeared over all consumers and without it the costs are born solely by the ones that suffer mishaps. George From jhurtado at kpmg.com Mon Aug 13 16:13:25 2001 From: jhurtado at kpmg.com (Hurtado, Jorge E) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:13:25 -0500 Subject: I need Message-ID: <55CBCAAB439CD311B11300805F9FE6527AD0FE@cobogexc02.co.kworld.kpmg.com> I need Places of the dreamcast games isos. Tahnk you ******************************************************************************** The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawfull. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the term and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. ******************************************************************************** From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Mon Aug 13 18:27:29 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Terrorist and Pedophiles In-Reply-To: from "measl@mfn.org" at Aug 13, 2001 07:29:07 PM Message-ID: <200108140127.f7E1RTd02314@artifact.psychedelic.net> J.A. Terranson wrote: >> Regarding terrorists. Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist" >> as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence >> opinion. >> Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a >> terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens. > Close, but not quite. It does not require the breaking of law, only > actions which are in some way "offensive". >From Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) comes the favorite definition of the US State Department... "The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant(1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." The footnote expands "noncombatant" to include any element of the military that is not actually engaged in formal hostilities against you at the time you attack it. So under the State Department's definition, unless official war is currently being waged around the target, all attacks on US Servicemen, and US military bases and assets, are "terrorist" attacks. Nothing Israel does to the Palestinians is "terrorist", but everything the Palestinians do in response is "terrorist," of course. According to the state department, "noncombatants" can actually be property, as opposed to people, so taking a few whacks at an oil pipeline with a baseball bat is "terrorism" too. Unless you're a government, of course. Premeditated violence by persons in no official position of authority is generally unlawful, as far as I know. Perhaps you could think up an exception, but I'm not aware of any. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From dggylthrs at hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 18:37:11 2001 From: dggylthrs at hotmail.com (Doggie Leathers) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:37:11 Subject: Doggie Leathers Message-ID: <200108140137.SAA19056@toad.com> ANNOUNCING THE BRAND NEW : www.DOGGIELEATHERS.com. At Doggie Leathers, we build beautiful, unique, custom, hand tooled fine LEATHER dog harness sets. These beautiful one of a kind LEATHER sets are available in FOUR RICH COLORS and feature our exclusive "Dual Backstrap/Dual Buckled" HARNESS, COLLAR, five foot LEAD, two custom leather dog NAME TAGS (for collar & harness), all heavy duty SOLID BRASS HARDWARE, and a beautiful FREE MATCHING LEATHER BELT for you. Each of our harness sets is INDIVIDUALLY HAND MADE to your dog's own measurements. No two sets are exactly alike ! You will not find a fine leather doggie harness like this anywhere else in the world ! Give your dog a summer gift of beautiful, comfortable leather that will last his life time. Please feel free to print this message for future reference, to bookmark and contact us through our website, and to forward this e-mail to a "doggie friend". Thank you, from http://www.DOGGIELEATHERS.com ! REMEMBER, BIG SUMMER SALE & FREE SHIPPING ON ALL MAIL ORDERS ! P.S. This is NOT SPAM. To be removed from our list, please reply with "remove" in the subject field. Thanks . . . From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 13 10:02:39 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:02:39 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <20010813093214.A788@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Eric Murray wrote: > Especially with the press constantly telling them "Linux is hard". If they listen to the press, they have only themselves to blame. Sheep frequently end as yummy lamb chops. > Most people know that MS software is buggy and inecure. But they think > that it is normal to have to reboot your computer daily and to get > infected with worms through your email. After all, it's the same for > all their friends and co-workers, how can they even know to expect > anything else? Does ignorance make you somehow immune against consequences? One can acquire new friends, or use the frigging search engine instead of the game/Bud afternoon, for starters. > Almost all the press tells them that MS is the only way to go and that > anything else is wierd and hard to run. The unreliability and Awww, my heart bleeds for the poor lambs. > security holes are just a burden to be borne... it's remarkable how > much people can tolerate if it's done to them gradually. If they tolerate it, it isn't hurting bad enough. Why don't you let Darwin sort them out? If they think NT in naval hardware context or Outlook on the ISS is a smart thing to do, why don't you let them find it out the hard way? Of course it limits your choices if you make a living in IT, but there are always niches. If it gets bad enough, you can always find a few sensible folks, or an entirely new field. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From measl at mfn.org Mon Aug 13 17:29:07 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:29:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Terrorist and Pedophiles In-Reply-To: <200108132351.f7DNpPk01120@artifact.psychedelic.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote: > Regarding terrorists. Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist" > as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence > opinion. > > Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a > terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens. Close, but not quite. It does not require the breaking of law, only actions which are in some way "offensive". -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 13 17:30:51 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:30:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: chip fabs gearing up for AES (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20010813235721.15962.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: On 13 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > Copyrights expire; property doesn't. Never bought milk I guess, or a pet, or been to the beach.... -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu Mon Aug 13 16:49:33 2001 From: dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu (dmolnar) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: alt.anonymous.messages practice Message-ID: I just took a look at the first 10 messages I could pull down from alt.anonymous.messages using pgp2.6.2 . Eight were encrypted with symmetric encryption. One was encrypted with keyID 591B0E69. A last one identified itself as encrypted with public-key crypto, but in a format not otherwise intelligible to poor 2.6.2 . Now, keyID 591B0E69 isn't in the keyservers, of course, but it will be interesting to watch alt.anonymous.messages for the next few days and see if any other messages encrypted to that key should show up. Well, if I get around to writing the scripts to watch for it, which I probably won't. I don't suppose anyone's been gathering data like this in public? In particular, it'll be interesting to see if 591B0E69 is simply receiving an initial message (to set up a shared password for conventional encryption) -- or if it will receive many more messages. This is a good reason to use Adam Back's Stealth PGP. Although, as David Hopwood has pointed out, ordinary RSA may reveal information about the key used to encrypt, even if the headers are stripped out. There are fixes for that, of course, but not yet deployed AFAIK. From measl at mfn.org Mon Aug 13 19:06:48 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:06:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Russian Programmer Not Eager to be Celebrity In-Reply-To: <20010813214931.17156.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Message-ID: On 13 Aug 2001, John R. Levine wrote: > I can't say I'm surprised. When he's not writing copy protection and > password cracking code, he's also one of the world's leading authors > of spamware, both programs to scrape e-mail addresses from web pages > (http://www.mailutilities.com/aee/) and to spam direct from dialups, > avoiding rate limits in the ISP's mail server > (http://www.mailutilities.com/adr/). > > While I agree that the DMCA is an asinine law, and it's doubly asinine > to try to enforce it against non-resident foreigners, Skylarov is > hardly the virtuous innocent that some press accounts suggest he is. I cannot express how fed up I am with this type of tunnel-vision HYPOCRISY. The same folks who are screaming that writing public crypto code must be covered by the 1st because "it is good" are screaming that Sklyarov is now "bad" because he writes spamware. One idiot went so far as to call for Sklyarov's *execution* because he may have written the program that was once used to send UCE/UBE to the miscreant whiner! The is same belligerently assinine argument that the anti-gunners use: a gun is designed to kill, so we must do away with the right to own them. Yes, I am aware that this politically incorrect (but logically accurate) statement is likely to get me flamed from here to hell and back (I can just see the "SPAM SUPPORTER!" pseudo-flames now...). -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 13 20:20:09 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 22:20:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Cypherpunks, pay per use remailers, and the good ol' , days In-Reply-To: <20010814012008.14366.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: On 14 Aug 2001, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: > An alternative is to pay the first remailer for the whole chain, and then > to have that remailer pay the second remailer, the second remailer pay > the third remailer, and so on. This way the follow-on remailers don't > know who the original sender of the message was. The remailers can also > batch up their payments when they are sending a bunch of messages to other > remailers, perhaps even just pay the net clearing amount on a daily basis. > > Some discussion of this idea as a mechanism for anonymous payments is > in the archives at > http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.02.28-2000.03.05/msg00302.html > and follow-ups. What a circle jerk process...this sort of approach will completely swamp the operator in contractual obligations through proxies (these supposed blinding mix operators)....only a lawyer could love it. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Mon Aug 13 20:29:40 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 22:29:40 -0500 Subject: OPT: Slashdot | Felten Will Present SDMI Research At USENIX Message-ID: <3B789B24.CFB3379A@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/13/1947257.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From stevet at sendon.net Mon Aug 13 15:36:17 2001 From: stevet at sendon.net (Steve Thompson) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 22:36:17 +0000 Subject: Rand report: Facecams can thwart terrorism, install them now! References: <20010813120911.B2040@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108132342.TAA23750@divert.sendon.net> Quoting Declan McCullagh (declan at well.com): > From: "Thomas C. Greene" > To: > Subject: Rand urges face-scanning of the masses > Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:14:30 -0700 [snip] > Chief among these are the detection of terrorists and pedophiles, as we > said. No matter that these sick individuals comprise a mere fraction of a > fraction of normal human beings. No matter that detecting them requires the > most outrageous government intrusions into the natural comings and goings of > millions of innocent people. [snip] > ----- End forwarded message ----- Personally, I see nothing wrong with this type of technology. Those `millions of innocent people' which comprise the populace are, as we all know, criminals in thought if not in deed. Considering the laws as currently instantiated, we all know that each so-called innocent person will commit a crime in the future, or has committed one in the past for which they were not convicted. There is no reason to bother considering the `rights' of criminals to not be face-scanned as only innocent people deserve that kind of respect. Therefore, installing smart cameras in every corner of the world in which man might conceivably tread is a task which should be undertake soonest. All this whining about invasions of privacy, unreasonable search and seizure, Constitution this, Bill of Rights that, etc. is just so yesterday. Regards, Steve -- ``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no philosophy of it. The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology.... Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry. If it attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.'' -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament" From measl at mfn.org Mon Aug 13 21:09:40 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:09:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote: > >> you could be right. i guess it's time i sent them another donation. > > Save it: the people MAPS has harmed neet it more. > > support low-life, slimeball, spammers? ROFL! No, I'm not talking about the spammers who were caught in maps, I'm referring to the INNOCENTS who were caught in MAPS. If the LEO community acted like MAPS does, there would have been armed revolution in the streets *years ago*. MAPS never gave a shit about facts, they cared only about their agenda - no matter who got hurt in the way. Fuckem. Vixie is a netnazi who would do us all a favor if he just blew what little brains he has left out of his left ear. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Mon Aug 13 21:10:49 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:10:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting (fwd) Message-ID: From measl at mfn.org Mon Aug 13 21:33:36 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:33:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting In-Reply-To: <20010814002011.F26242@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Jared Mauch wrote: > > No, I'm not talking about the spammers who were caught in maps, I'm > > referring to the INNOCENTS who were caught in MAPS. If the LEO community > > acted like MAPS does, there would have been armed revolution in the > > streets *years ago*. > > > > MAPS never gave a shit about facts, they cared only about their agenda - > > no matter who got hurt in the way. > > > > Fuckem. Vixie is a netnazi who would do us all a favor if he just blew > > what little brains he has left out of his left ear. > > I think you are confused and talking about ORBS. the MAPS people > have not acted with any agenda that I've ever seen. I assure you I am not confused. ORBS was intolerably worse, but MAPS is still not something I am looking forward to seeing survive. > I'm not saying that I agree with all the things that MAPS > or Vixie has done during their lifetimes but I think they provide > a valuable service. Then of course, you are free to subscribe. > With the orbs, maps changes recently i've seen > the volume of spam increase by several orders of magnitude. Agreed. > I wish there was a clean way to filter it out. There are plenty, but most of us are too goddamn lazy to do it ourselves, and ask for an ORBS or MAPS like service to do it for us. We have NEVER had a spam problem (we've been here since 1994) going out - not a single incident (not that we probably won't haqve one *someday*, but still, it's a hell of a good track record). The SPAM problem goes up and down to be sure, but you know what? PROCMAIL is your friend. All you need to look for are the basics (ADV, Make Money, etc) and you can instatly filter 90 percent of this trash into the bitbucket. At work (not mfn.org), I get several orders of magnitude more mail (usually obnoxious at that) from the "gentle anti-spammers" than the poor "victims" get themselves! Lets get my position straight: I think spam is annoying as heel, and should not be done. I don't think that SPAM is going to cause any major social upheavals. I also disagree that all people want to be spared from SPAM, and with thaqt in mind, I believe everyone should defend themselves to the best of their interest, and leave the next guy alone: he or she probably has *way* more important things to worry about. > - Jared -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From remailer at remailer.xganon.com Mon Aug 13 21:34:45 2001 From: remailer at remailer.xganon.com (Anonymous) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:34:45 -0500 Subject: Scott McNealy Toon Message-ID: <501329c4a22d7d117226cf9b6bf24c1c@remailer.xganon.com> http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200108/df20010808.jpg From drevil at sidereal.kz Mon Aug 13 16:57:21 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 13 Aug 2001 23:57:21 -0000 Subject: chip fabs gearing up for AES (fwd) In-Reply-To: (message from Jim Choate on Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:40:00 -0500 (CDT)) References: Message-ID: <20010813235721.15962.qmail@sidereal.kz> > With subtle distinctions, intellectual-property (IP) core vendors are > readying implementations of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) > security algorithm. This author needs to get a clue. There is only one form of intellectual property, which is the trademark, and trademarks won't benefit from encryption. Copyrights are "held", not "owned". Copyrights expire; property doesn't. Copyrights exist to reward the production of artisitic or literary material, as a public benefit. Property rights exist for their owners. The term "intellectual property" must have been invented by the same PR genius who invented the terms "freeway" and "Social Security". From jokeline at yours.com Mon Aug 13 16:21:16 2001 From: jokeline at yours.com (John) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:21:16 +0100 Subject: Have a good laugh! Message-ID: <200108132259.PAA31748@ecotone.toad.com> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Play A Joke On A Friend, Colleague, Relative Or Even An Enemy -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Call Jokeline and you'll be in stitches! With our new service you're able to wind-up, confuse and bemuse people with a choice of hoax callers that you can transfer to your victim on any UK landline or mobile and then listen in to the call and hear their reaction Don't worry though, they won't be able to hear you, nor tell that you made the call - try it on a speaker phone and a group can hear -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Just use the easy to follow recipe: -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- (i) choose one ripe victim (ii) add Jokeline by dialling 0906 736 9265 (iii) then select: 1 - Wind-up samples 2 - Mr Angry 3 - The Irate Delivery Driver 4 - An Invite To No 10 5 - Suspect Package In Your Street 6 - You're Wanted At The Police Station 7 - The Tax Inspector 8 - You've Got My Daughter Pregnant (iv) enter your victims number (v) wait for the transfer (vi) when they answer, prepare yourself and ...enjoy! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This has got to be the funniest joke to play on anyone -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please note: this service is a harmless bit of adult fun and the recipient of such a call will be informed it was a joke at the end of the call Jokeline BCM 1543 London WC1N 3XX United Kingdom Calls are charged at �1/min at all times Maximum call duration 5 mins, average 2 mins Please ensure you have the permission of the bill payer before calling You've received this email as you're on our mailing list, if however you do not wish to receive any further emails simply reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line and any additional addresses to be removed in the body From jokeline at yours.com Mon Aug 13 16:21:24 2001 From: jokeline at yours.com (John) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:21:24 +0100 Subject: Have a good laugh! Message-ID: <200108132321.f7DNL0U25776@ak47.algebra.com> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Play A Joke On A Friend, Colleague, Relative Or Even An Enemy -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Call Jokeline and you'll be in stitches! With our new service you're able to wind-up, confuse and bemuse people with a choice of hoax callers that you can transfer to your victim on any UK landline or mobile and then listen in to the call and hear their reaction Don't worry though, they won't be able to hear you, nor tell that you made the call - try it on a speaker phone and a group can hear -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Just use the easy to follow recipe: -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- (i) choose one ripe victim (ii) add Jokeline by dialling 0906 736 9265 (iii) then select: 1 - Wind-up samples 2 - Mr Angry 3 - The Irate Delivery Driver 4 - An Invite To No 10 5 - Suspect Package In Your Street 6 - You're Wanted At The Police Station 7 - The Tax Inspector 8 - You've Got My Daughter Pregnant (iv) enter your victims number (v) wait for the transfer (vi) when they answer, prepare yourself and ...enjoy! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This has got to be the funniest joke to play on anyone -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please note: this service is a harmless bit of adult fun and the recipient of such a call will be informed it was a joke at the end of the call Jokeline BCM 1543 London WC1N 3XX United Kingdom Calls are charged at �1/min at all times Maximum call duration 5 mins, average 2 mins Please ensure you have the permission of the bill payer before calling You've received this email as you're on our mailing list, if however you do not wish to receive any further emails simply reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line and any additional addresses to be removed in the body From declan at well.com Mon Aug 13 21:59:53 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:59:53 -0400 Subject: Russian Programmer Not Eager to be Celebrity In-Reply-To: ; from measl@mfn.org on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:06:48PM -0500 References: <20010813214931.17156.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> Message-ID: <20010814005953.A19546@cluebot.com> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:06:48PM -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: > I cannot express how fed up I am with this type of tunnel-vision > HYPOCRISY. > > The same folks who are screaming that writing public crypto code must be > covered by the 1st because "it is good" are screaming that Sklyarov is now > "bad" because he writes spamware. One idiot went so far as to call for > Sklyarov's *execution* because he may have written the program that was > once used to send UCE/UBE to the miscreant whiner! There are two obvious ways to defend Sklyarov: * This person is a great guy, wife, two kids, smart, grad student, academic, researcher, programmer, cryptologist, etc. He didn't do anything except piss off Adobe, and the DMCA is unconstitional anyway, so let him go free. * Okay, Sklyarov may be a spamware writer and we may worry about his poor sense of ethics and in fact he's not someone we'd want to spend any time with in person, but he should go free since the DMCA is unconstitutional and spamware, though we hate it, is 1A-protected. I think the antispammers are taking position #2. Nobody I have read says he should be locked up because of writing spamware. -Declan From mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu Mon Aug 13 18:20:08 2001 From: mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu (lcs Mixmaster Remailer) Date: 14 Aug 2001 01:20:08 -0000 Subject: Cypherpunks, pay per use remailers, and the good ol' days Message-ID: <20010814012008.14366.qmail@nym.alias.net> Declan wrote, quoting himself: > > Yet some form of PPU remailer could exist today: A remailer would find a > > cookie and an encrypted-to-PPU-public-key credit card in the body of the > > message it receives. It would then debit a credit card for, say, $3 and > [...] > > The usual objection to such a system would be that the feds would impose > > pressure on the banking system (or credit card companies would do it > > themselves) and prevent remailer ops from securing merchant accounts. That > > may be true, but remailers at least today aren't seen as a serious threat. > > They could get away with it for a while. > > Thinking through this a little bit more, such a system wouldn't work > well given today's technology. It would allow an attacker to know > with a high degree of certainty the truename (cardname) of someone > and link that with an encrypted message. By unwrapping it down the > chain with subpoenas and court orders, it would be possible to > get at least the last To: line if not the final text. An alternative is to pay the first remailer for the whole chain, and then to have that remailer pay the second remailer, the second remailer pay the third remailer, and so on. This way the follow-on remailers don't know who the original sender of the message was. The remailers can also batch up their payments when they are sending a bunch of messages to other remailers, perhaps even just pay the net clearing amount on a daily basis. Some discussion of this idea as a mechanism for anonymous payments is in the archives at http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.02.28-2000.03.05/msg00302.html and follow-ups. From drevil at sidereal.kz Mon Aug 13 18:30:57 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 14 Aug 2001 01:30:57 -0000 Subject: chip fabs gearing up for AES (fwd) In-Reply-To: (message from Jim Choate on Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:30:51 -0500 (CDT)) References: Message-ID: <20010814013057.21221.qmail@sidereal.kz> > > Copyrights expire; property doesn't. > > Never bought milk I guess, or a pet, or been to the beach.... Ah, good point. To be more clear: property rights don't expire, but the property itself might. Speaking of which I think I need to clean my fridge. But I still have title to that OJ, no matter how old it is! From drevil at sidereal.kz Mon Aug 13 22:15:56 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 14 Aug 2001 05:15:56 -0000 Subject: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting (fwd) In-Reply-To: (measl@mfn.org) References: Message-ID: <20010814051556.27980.qmail@sidereal.kz> The whole purpose of MAPS is the Balkanization of the internet. Balkanization of the Internet is a good thing. There should be parts of the Internet that are spam-free (that's where I want to be) and other parts where peoples' mailboxes are constantly full of get-rich-quick-find-out-anything-about-snow-white-and-the-seven-dwarves-penis-enlargement-offers. People who want that kind of mail should get it, and those who don't shouldn't. From HLin at nas.edu Tue Aug 14 03:03:30 2001 From: HLin at nas.edu (Herb Lin) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 06:03:30 -0400 Subject: 8-CALL FOR REVIEWERS: Draft NRC report on "Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content." Message-ID: CALL FOR REVIEWERS - PLEASE POST WIDELY The National Research Council seeks reviewers for a draft report on its project on "Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content." More information on this project, including a list of committee members, can be found at < http://www.itasnrc.org>. Purpose of review Every report of the National Research Council must be reviewed by a diverse group of experts other than its authors before it may be released outside the institution. This independent, rigorous review is a hallmark that distinguishes the NRC from many other organizations offering scientific and technical advice on issues of national importance. The purpose of such review is to assist the authors in making their report as accurate and effective as possible, and to enhance the clarity, cogency, and credibility of the final document. Responsibilities of reviewers Reviewers are asked to consider whether in their judgment the evidence and arguments presented are sound and the report is fully responsive to the study charge, not whether they concur with the findings. Reviewers provide written comments on any and all aspects of the draft report, and the authoring committee is expected to consider all review comments and to provide written responses to those comments, either modifying the report accordingly or explaining why the report was not modified. The committee's responses are themselves evaluated by the National Research Council for adequacy and completeness. Note that NRC reports have a history of changing significantly between draft and final versions as the result of reviewer comments. Qualifications of reviewers Reviewers of NRC reports are selected on the basis of personal expertise in a field or fields relevant to the subject matter of the report; a dedication to drawing conclusions based on the analysis of data and information; sufficiently seniority in their fields to warrant broad respect for their intellect, fairness, and stature. Names of reviewers are made public at the time of the report's final publication, but during the review process they are anonymous to the committee and staff. Confidentiality of report Because NRC reports change as the result of review, reviewers must be willing to keep the draft report absolutely confidential and otherwise abide by the NRC's guidelines for reviewing of reports. Procedure for submitting names Please forward nominations for reviewers (self-nominations acceptable) to itas at nas.edu. The "subject" line of the e-mail should say "reviewer nomination." Submitted nominations should include contact information, biographies (including relevant published works, public statements, and current or former positions of relevance), and indications of relevant expertise and the perspective on the subject that the nominee will bring. Note that while the NRC seeks nominations from a wide variety of sources, it reserves the exclusive right to determine reviewers of its reports. Deadline for Nominations While nominations may be submitted at any time, nominations without the information described above, or received after September 15, 2001, may not be fully considered. More information is available from the Web site of this project at < http://www.itasnrc.org> or from Herb Lin (Study Director), at 202-334-2605. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- From lisat at etransmail2.com Tue Aug 14 06:28:04 2001 From: lisat at etransmail2.com (Lisa Thornton) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 06:28:04 -0700 Subject: New Prestige & Premium Checks! Message-ID: <200108141314.f7EDEiU30158@ak47.algebra.com> You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com Good Afternoon! 1. New: highly attractive and secure Prestige & Premium check styles from G7 http://www.g7ps.com 2. Get your Executive Membership today and save on all your purchases of toner supplies, software and blank check paper! Click on the link below and then on the "Become a Member and Save" banner: http://www.g7ps.com 3. FREE Productivity Software in full retail packaging: ******************** a) eXpressForms "forms publisher" ($129.99 value) b) Fortune "relationship manager" ($149.99 value) c) DataScan "business card & contact list scanner" ($149.99 value) d) TransForm Suite "automatic form creation and text OCR" ($59.99 value) Pick up your FREE products at the web site specified below. Click on the following link for details and to order (or call the 800 number below) http://www.g7ps.com ********************* Please do not hesitate to call 800-303-2620 for any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Regards, Lisa Thornton Productivity Services Director G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. lisat at etransmail2.com 800-303-2620 To change your communication preference please click on: http://www.globalzon2k.com/scripts/mf_de.asp?e=cypherpunks at algebra.com or simply reply to this Email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. From moremoney at freenet.co.uk Tue Aug 14 06:53:27 2001 From: moremoney at freenet.co.uk (moremoney at freenet.co.uk) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: REAL MONEY -UVVT Message-ID: <200108141353.GAA06384@toad.com> Subject:REAL MONEY Dear Friends & Future Millionaire: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time THANK'S TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! ================================================== BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! Before you say ''Bull'', please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can -follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost''. DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am >so gladI finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in." Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. =================================================== Here is another testimonial: "This program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa ..... 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything.'' More testimonials later but first, ===== PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTUREREFERENCE ====== $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: ====Order all 5 reports shown on the list below ===== For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. === When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00. Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. IMPORTANT - DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will loose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! ========================================================= = **** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ========================================================= = Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.2%. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.2% responded with orders. That's=100 people responded and ordered Report # 2 . Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5 THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4 .. $50,000 + 5..... $500,000 ........ Grand Total=$555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGUREOUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! ========================================================= REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ======================================================= Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and dd METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. =========== AVAILABLE REPORTS ==================== ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : ==================================================== REPORT # 1: "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net" Order Report #1 from: J.Kay 37 Leslie Road Toll Bar St Helens, Merseyside, WA10 3EQ, England ___________________________________________________________ REPORT # 2: "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net" Order Report # 2 from: M.G. 7143 Hillside Dr. W. Bloomfield, MI 48322-2847, USA ____________________________________________________________ REPORT # 3: "Secret to Multilevel Marketing on the Net" Order Report # 3 from : K.C. 7143 Hillside Dr. W. Bloomfield, MI 48322-2847, USA __________________________________________________________ REPORT # 4: "How to Become a Millionaire Utilizing MLM & the Net" Order Report # 4 from: B. M. 4510 Meadow Way White Lake, Mi 48383-1816, USA ____________________________________________________________ REPORT #5: "How to Send Out 0ne Million e-mails for Free" Order Report # 5 from: D. J. 16 Northcrest Dr. London, Ontario, Canada N5X-3V8 ___________________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: === If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. === After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. === Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in ! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a Different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!! ====================================================== FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: 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 weeks and months than you have ever imagined. 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 report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails 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 ! ============ MORE TESTIMONIALS ================ "My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail''. I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I ''knew'' it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so'' on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received total $ 147,200.00 ........... all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her ''hobby''. Mitchell Wolf M.D., Chicago, Illinois ====================================================== ''Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back''. '' I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big." Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada ======================================================= 'I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.........11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks." Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. ======================================================= ''It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanx to internet.". Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ======================================================= ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON 'YOUR' ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM ! ======================================================= If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. (Note: To avoid delays make sure appropriate postage to Canada is applied if mailing from the US) -=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=Remove Instructions=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ************************************************************** Do not reply to this message - To be removed from future mailings: ************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at From ericm at lne.com Tue Aug 14 08:11:10 2001 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:11:10 -0700 Subject: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting In-Reply-To: ; from measl@mfn.org on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:33:36PM -0500 References: <20010814002011.F26242@puck.nether.net> Message-ID: <20010814081110.A6241@slack.lne.com> On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:33:36PM -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > > No, I'm not talking about the spammers who were caught in maps, I'm > > > referring to the INNOCENTS who were caught in MAPS. If the LEO community > > > acted like MAPS does, there would have been armed revolution in the > > > streets *years ago*. > > > > > > MAPS never gave a shit about facts, they cared only about their agenda - > > > no matter who got hurt in the way. > > > > > > Fuckem. Vixie is a netnazi who would do us all a favor if he just blew > > > what little brains he has left out of his left ear. > > > > I think you are confused and talking about ORBS. the MAPS people > > have not acted with any agenda that I've ever seen. > > I assure you I am not confused. ORBS was intolerably worse, but MAPS is > still not something I am looking forward to seeing survive. The best way to do that is to produce a solution that's better than MAPS. If you strongly beleive in end-user filtering, then make a better end-user filter. In fact you can start with mine (see web page) and make it user-friendly enough that your Mom can use it. Then it might see significant use. MAPS might not have been perfect, and ORBS was overly agressive, but they were actually doing something. It was simple, just add a couple lines to your sendmail.cf and much of your spam would go away. Great for ISPs with users complaining about spam. (that's a hint about how your better-than-MAPS system might work). [stuff deleted] It's easier to write a rant than it is to write code, but code is what counts. Eric From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Tue Aug 14 06:40:06 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:40:06 -0400 Subject: Terrorist [was: and....] Message-ID: > measl at mfn.org[SMTP:measl at mfn.org] > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote: > > > Regarding terrorists. Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist" > > as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence > > opinion. > > Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a > > terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens. > Close, but not quite. It does not require the breaking of law, only > actions which are in some way "offensive". > Yours, > J.A. Terranson > You also forget another critical condition: It's OK if your sub-national group opposes a government which the US dislikes; therefore those trying to overthrow Saadam are 'freedom fighters'., rather than terrorists. The same group can easily flip from one status to another as outside conditions change - many of the Afghanis the USG now labels 'terrorists' were started on their careers as US sponsored 'freedom fighters'. Another example: Kurds striving to establish Kurdistan are regarded by the US as either freedom fighters or terrorists, depending which side of the Turkish/Iraqi border they are on. Of course, by the US Governments definition, George Washington and the other Founding Fathers were terrorists. 'We have always been at war with EastAsia'. Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Tue Aug 14 06:40:06 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:40:06 -0400 Subject: Terrorist [was: and....] Message-ID: > measl at mfn.org[SMTP:measl at mfn.org] > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote: > > > Regarding terrorists. Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist" > > as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence > > opinion. > > Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a > > terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens. > Close, but not quite. It does not require the breaking of law, only > actions which are in some way "offensive". > Yours, > J.A. Terranson > You also forget another critical condition: It's OK if your sub-national group opposes a government which the US dislikes; therefore those trying to overthrow Saadam are 'freedom fighters'., rather than terrorists. The same group can easily flip from one status to another as outside conditions change - many of the Afghanis the USG now labels 'terrorists' were started on their careers as US sponsored 'freedom fighters'. Another example: Kurds striving to establish Kurdistan are regarded by the US as either freedom fighters or terrorists, depending which side of the Turkish/Iraqi border they are on. Of course, by the US Governments definition, George Washington and the other Founding Fathers were terrorists. 'We have always been at war with EastAsia'. Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Tue Aug 14 06:47:49 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:47:49 -0400 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: ... Message-ID: It's been interesting seeing the back and forth on this, especially since I kicked off this subthread. I've found the anti-liability arguments quite persuasive. Peter Trei From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Tue Aug 14 06:47:49 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:47:49 -0400 Subject: Products Liability and Innovation. Was: ... Message-ID: It's been interesting seeing the back and forth on this, especially since I kicked off this subthread. I've found the anti-liability arguments quite persuasive. Peter Trei From Scully at cipherwar.com Tue Aug 14 07:01:41 2001 From: Scully at cipherwar.com ( Scully@cipherwar.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:01:41 -0400 Subject: Organized Crime and Cybercrime: Synergies, Trends, and Responses Message-ID: http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=01081304.glt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml Byliner: Internet Is Likely New Target of Crime, Expert Warns (Criminal Organizations find new opportunities in cyberspace) (2850) (The following originally appeared in the Global Issues Aug. 8 Electronic Journal "Arresting Transnational Crime.") Organized Crime and Cybercrime: Synergies, Trends, and Responses By Phil Williams (Professor of International Security Studies, University of Pittsburgh and 2001-2002 Visiting Scientist at CERT/CC, a center of Internet security expertise at Carnegie Mellon University. Williams is also the editor of the journal "Transnational Organized Crime" at http://www.pitt.edu/~rcss/toc.html) The capabilities and opportunities provided by the Internet have transformed many legitimate business activities, augmenting the speed, ease, and range with which transactions can be conducted while also lowering many of the costs. Criminals have also discovered that the Internet can provide new opportunities and multiplier benefits for illicit business. The dark side of the Internet involves not only fraud and theft, pervasive pornography, and pedophile rings, but also drug trafficking and criminal organizations that are more intent upon exploitation than the disruption that is the focus of the hacking community. In the virtual world, as in the real world, most criminal activities are initiated by individuals or small groups and can best be understood as "disorganized crime." Yet there is growing evidence that organized crime groups are exploiting the new opportunities offered by the Internet. Organized crime and cybercrime will never be synonymous. Most organized crime will continue to operate in the real world rather than the cyberworld and most cybercrime will be perpetrated by individuals rather than criminal organizations per se. Nevertheless, the degree of overlap between the two phenomena is likely to increase considerably in the next few years. Organized Crime and Cybercrime Organized crime is primarily about the pursuit of profit and can be understood in Clausewitzian (1) terms as a continuation of business by criminal means. Consequently, just as brick-and-mortar companies move their enterprises on to the Worldwide Web seeking new opportunities for profits, criminal enterprises are doing the same thing. Criminal organizations are not the only players in illicit markets, but they are often the most important, not least because of the added "competitiveness" that is provided by the threat of organized violence. Moreover, criminal organizations tend to be exceptionally good at identifying and seizing opportunities for new illegal enterprises and activities. In this context, the Internet and the continuing growth of electronic commerce offer enormous new prospects for illicit profits. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the sophistication of organized crime and drug trafficking groups. Colombian drug trafficking organizations, for example, have followed standard business practices for market and product diversification, exploiting new markets in Western Europe and the former Soviet Union. Criminal organizations and drug traffickers have increasingly hired financial specialists to conduct their money laundering transactions. This adds an extra layer of insulation while utilizing legal and financial experts knowledgeable about financial transactions and the availability of safe havens in offshore financial jurisdictions. Similarly, organized crime does not need to develop technical expertise about the Internet. It can hire those in the hacking community who do have the expertise, ensuring through a mixture of rewards and threats that they carry out their assigned tasks effectively and efficiently. Organized crime groups typically have a home base in weak states that provide safe havens from which they conduct their transnational operations. In effect, this provides an added degree of protection against law enforcement and allows them to operate with minimal risk. The inherently transnational nature of the Internet fits perfectly into this model of activity and the effort to maximize profits within an acceptable degree of risk. In the virtual world, there are no borders, a characteristic that makes it very attractive for criminal activity. When authorities attempt to police this virtual world, however, borders and national jurisdictions loom large -- making extensive investigation slow and tedious, at best, and impossible, at worst. The Internet itself provides opportunities for various kinds of theft, whether from online banks or of intellectual property. But it also offers new means of committing old crimes such as fraud, and offers new vulnerabilities relating to communications and data that provide attractive targets for extortion, a crime that has always been a staple of mafia organizations. The anonymity of the Internet also makes it an ideal channel and instrument for many organized crime activities. The notion of a criminal underworld connotes a murkiness or lack of transparency. Secrecy is usually a key part of organized crime strategy and the Internet offers excellent opportunities for its maintenance. Actions can be hidden behind a veil of anonymity that can range from the use of ubiquitous cybercafes to sophisticated efforts to cover Internet routing. Organized crime has always selected particular industries as targets for infiltration and the exercise of illicit influence. In the past, these have included the New York City garbage hauling and construction industries, the construction and toxic waste disposal industries in Italy, and the banking and aluminum industries in Russia. From an organized crime perspective, the Internet and the growth of e-commerce present a new set of targets for infiltration and the exercise of influence -- a prospect that suggests that Internet technology and service firms should be particularly careful about prospective partners and financial supporters. In sum, the synergy between organized crime and the Internet is not only very natural but also one that is likely to flourish and develop even further in the future. The Internet provides both channels and targets for crime and enables them to be exploited for considerable gain with a very low level of risk. For organized crime it is difficult to ask for more. It is critical, therefore, to identify some of the ways in which organized crime is already overlapping with cybercrime. Major Trends in Organized Crime and CyberCrime Organized crime groups are using the Internet for major fraud and theft activities. Perhaps the most notable example of this -- albeit an unsuccessful one -- occurred in October 2000 and concerned the Bank of Sicily. A group of about 20 people, some of whom were connected to mafia families, working with an insider, created a digital clone of the bank's online component. The group then planned to use this to divert about $400 million allocated by the European Union to regional projects in Sicily. The money was to be laundered through various financial institutions, including the Vatican bank and banks in Switzerland and Portugal. The scheme was foiled when one member of the group informed the authorities. Nevertheless, it revealed very clearly that organized crime sees enormous opportunities for profit stemming from the growth of electronic banking and electronic commerce. Indeed, organized crime diversification into various forms of Internet crime is closely related to a second discernible trend -- organized crime involvement in what was once categorized as white-collar crime. The activities of the U.S. mob and Russian criminal organizations on Wall Street fall into this category. During the late 1990s there were numerous cases of criminal organizations manipulating microcap stocks using classic "pump and dump" techniques. While much of this was done through coercion or control of brokerage houses, the Internet was also used to distribute information that artificially inflated the price of the stocks. Among those involved were members of the Bonnano, Genovese, and Colombo crime families as well as Russian immigrant members of the Bor organized crime group. As criminal organizations move away from their more traditional "strong arm" activities and increasingly focus on opportunities for white-collar or financial crime, then Internet-based activities will become even more prevalent. Since Internet-related stock fraud results in a $10,000-million-per-year loss to investors, it offers a particularly lucrative area for organized crime involvement. This is not to suggest that organized crime will change its character. Its inherent willingness to use force and intimidation is well suited to the development of sophisticated cyberextortion schemes that threaten to disrupt information and communication systems and destroy data. The growth of cyberextortion is a third significant trend. Extortion schemes are sometimes bungled, but they can be conducted anonymously and incur only modest risks, while still yielding high pay-offs. Indeed, this might already be a form of crime that is significantly under-reported. Yet it is also one that we can expect to see expand considerably as organized crime moves enthusiastically to exploit the new vulnerabilities that come with increased reliance on networked systems. A fourth trend is the use of what were initially nuisance tools for more overtly criminal activities. Perhaps the most notable example of this occurred in late 2000 when a variation of a virus known as the Love Bug was used in an effort to gain access to account passwords in the Union Bank of Switzerland and at least two banks in the United States. Although this episode received little attention -- and it is not entirely clear who the perpetrators were -- it gives added credence to the theory that organized crime is developing relationships with technically skilled hackers. A fifth trend that we can expect to see is what might be termed jurisdictional arbitrage. Cybercrimes -- certainly when they are linked to organized crime -- will increasingly be initiated from jurisdictions that have few if any laws directed against cybercrime and/or little capacity to enforce laws against cybercrime. This was one of the lessons of the Love Bug virus. Although the virus spread worldwide and cost business thousands of millions of dollars, when FBI agents succeeded in identifying the perpetrator, a student in the Philippines, they also found that there were no laws under which he could be prosecuted. The Philippines acted soon thereafter to pass prohibitions on cybercrimes, and other countries have followed. Still, jurisdictional voids remain, allowing criminals and hackers to operate with impunity. Indeed, it is possible that some jurisdictions will increasingly seek to exploit a permissive attitude to attract business, creating information safe havens (paralleling offshore tax havens and bank secrecy jurisdictions) that make it difficult for law enforcement to follow information trails, and offering insulated cyber-business operations from which illicit businesses can operate with a minimum of interference. A sixth trend is that the Internet is increasingly likely to be used for money laundering. As the Internet becomes the medium through which more and more international trade takes place, the opportunities for laundering money through over-invoicing and under-invoicing are likely to grow. Online auctions offer similar opportunities to move money through apparently legitimate purchases, but paying much more than goods are worth. Online gambling also makes it possible to move money -- especially to offshore financial centers in the Caribbean. Moreover, as e-money and electronic banking become more widespread the opportunities to conceal the movement of the proceeds of crime in an increasing pool of illegal transactions are also likely to grow. A seventh trend involves growing network connections between hackers or small-time criminals and organized crime. In September 1999, for example, two members of a U.S.-based group known as the "Phonemasters" were convicted and jailed for their penetration of the computer systems of the telecommunications companies MCI, Sprint, AT&T, and Equifax. One of those convicted, Calvin Cantrell, had downloaded thousands of Sprint calling card numbers. They were sold to a Canadian, passed back through the United States, resold to another individual in Switzerland, and finally the calling cards ended up in the hands of organized crime groups in Italy. Network connections between the two kinds of groups are likely to deepen and widen. In addition, of course, organized crime groups use the Internet for communications (usually encrypted) and for any other purposes when they see it as useful and profitable. Indeed, organized crime is proving as flexible and adaptable in its exploitation of cyberopportunities as it is in any other opportunities for illegal activity. The implications are far-reaching and require a response from government that is strategic, multi-level, multilateral, and transnational in nature. Responses to the Organized Crime-CyberCrime Synergy The response to the growing overlap between organized crime and cybercrime requires a truly comprehensive strategy. There are precedents and models for this that can be particularly helpful, even allowing for the need to balance law enforcement and national security concerns against such considerations as personal privacy. The key principles that have guided the international community's responses to transnational organized crime and money laundering can serve as one good model. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a body set up by the G-7, has attempted to create norms and standards for governments and financial institutions to follow in the development of laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms at the national level. Although criticisms can be made of the FATF, in 2000 it launched an effective "name and shame" campaign that identified 15 "non-cooperative" jurisdictions whose efforts to combat money laundering were grossly inadequate. In some cases, the results were remarkable, leading to much more stringent anti-money laundering programs and far greater transparency of financial activities. While the FATF's campaign was the culmination of a 10-year effort, it nevertheless provides an approach that could usefully be emulated by the international community as it moves to combat cybercrime. The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, largely supported by the United States, is the first major step in this direction and can be understood as the beginning of the process of setting norms and standards that national governments ultimately will be expected to meet in their legislative, regulatory, and enforcement efforts. Underlying the convention approach is a fundamental recognition of the need to harmonize national laws. In recent years, international cooperation in law enforcement has been achieved through a series of extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) that allow governments to share information and evidence with each other. For MLATs and extradition treaties to go into effect, however, there is usually a requirement of dual criminality (i.e. the crime involved must be designated as a crime in both jurisdictions). In other words, international cooperation is enormously facilitated by convergence of what is criminalized in national jurisdictions. Furthermore, as pointed out by Ernesto Savona, head of the Transcrime Research Center in Trento, Italy, the imposition of similar laws in various countries both spreads the risks that criminal organizations have to confront and goes some way towards equalizing the risks across jurisdictions. In effect, the more widespread the laws, the fewer the safe havens from which organized crime-controlled hackers (or indeed individual hackers) can operate with impunity Harmonization is necessary for both substantive and procedural laws. All countries have to reappraise and revise rules of evidence, search and seizure, electronic eavesdropping, and the like to cover digitized information, modern computer and communication systems, and the global nature of the Internet. Greater coordination of procedural laws, therefore, would facilitate cooperation in investigations that cover multiple jurisdictions. In addition to appropriate laws, it is also important that governments and law enforcement agencies develop the capacity for implementation of these laws. This requires the development of expertise in the area of cybercrime as well as effective information sharing across agencies within a country and across national borders. Moreover, this sharing has to go beyond traditional law enforcement bodies to include national security and intelligence agencies. It is also essential to create specialized law enforcement units to deal with cybercrime issues at the national level. Such units can also provide a basis for both formal international cooperation and informal cooperation based on transnational networks of trust among law enforcement agents. Ad hoc cooperation and multinational task forces can both prove particularly useful -- and there are already cases where international cooperation has been very effective. Indeed, successful cooperation can breed emulation and further success. The other important component of a strategy to combat cybercrime is partnership between governments and industry, especially the information technology sector. Once again, there are precedents. In recent years, the major oil companies, although very competitive with one another, established information sharing arrangements and worked very closely with law enforcement to minimize infiltration by organized crime figures and criminal companies. Government-private sector cooperation of this kind is not always easy but it is clear that a degree of mutual trust can make a difference. For cooperation to be extended, law enforcement agencies have to exercise considerable care and discretion not to expose company vulnerabilities, while the companies themselves have to be willing to report any criminal activities directed against their information and communication systems. Even if considerable progress is made in all these areas, organized crime and cybercrime will continue to flourish. If steps are made in these directions, however, then there is at least some chance that cybercrime can be contained within acceptable bounds, that it will not undermine confidence in electronic commerce, that it will not so enrich organized crime groups that they can further corrupt and threaten governments, and that the big winner from the growth of the Internet will not be organized crime. (1) Refers to the German philosopher Karl Von Clausewitz, well-known for the maxim "war is the continuation of policy by other means." (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- From team at adultfriendfinder.com Tue Aug 14 03:18:57 2001 From: team at adultfriendfinder.com (team at adultfriendfinder.com) Date: 14 Aug 2001 10:18:57 -0000 Subject: Find a Sizzling Playmate at Adult Friend Finder! Message-ID: <20010814101857.28971.qmail@e95.friendfinder.com> Dear oddodoodo, Think cool. It's time for a sexy summer encounter! Every day, thousands of our members get together and get it on! Come back to http://AdultFriendFinder.com now, and get some action! * LET CUPID FIND YOU A NICE PIECE OF ASS! * USE FOOD FOR YOUR NEXT SEXCAPADE! * FrenchFriendFinder.com HAS LAUNCHED! * READ A MEMBER'S HOT 'N HORNY SUCCESS STORY! LET CUPID FIND YOU A NICE PIECE OF ASS! A simple form is all it takes to find the action you're looking for. Tell Cupid what you want, then kick back and wait for your new member matches to be delivered directly to your email inbox. Here's what you do: 1. Log in at http://AdultFriendFinder.com. 2. Under the My Account column, click on Update Cupid mail. 3. Create or edit your preferences. 4. Scroll down and click on Start Cupid. 5. Check your email to see your latest matches. Upgrade to a Gold Membership and get up to 20 matches in every Cupid report! You'll double your chances of finding the sexy playmate you've been dreaming about. As a Gold member, you'll also get a ton of extras like having your profile ranked highest on all pages, which will quadruple your response rate! As a Gold Member, you get up to 20 matches in every Cupid report! You'll get a preview of even more members who could be the sexy playmate you've been dreaming about. And remember to go to your Account Update area and turn on the membership auto-renewal service so you don't miss a moment of action. USE FOOD FOR YOUR NEXT SEXCAPADE! Food is a part of our lives, including sex. Foreplay can start over a meal served by candlelight. Try feeding each other, licking and sucking bits from your partner's hands. Food can be erotic if you're adventurous. Check out these food tips: 1) Sweets are good. Try chocolate sauce from a squeeze bottle or whipped cream from the can. These are easy to use and less messy. 2) If you want to explore inserting fruits and veggies, be sure to wash them thoroughly first - better yet, use a condom. Don't mess with small or soft items, unless you want the night to end in the emergency room. 3) No matter what you play with, try to plan for food play. Make sure your best sheets aren't on the bed, or throw towels down first. And remember to take a long shower and wash all your nooks and crannies! NEW! FrenchFriendFinder.com HAS LAUNCHED Ever wanted to meet a French friend? Visit our new addition to the Friend Finder Network, http://FrenchFriendFinder.com connects French and non-French alike! Join today for free - it's in both English and French! READ A MEMBER'S HOT AND HORNY SUCCESS STORY! I joined in search of sex and I found it...My favorite has been this one woman who, conveniently enough, lives in my neighborhood. We met last night for drinks, and didn't even get through our second round. It was an instant connection and before we knew it, we were in my bed tearing clothes off of each other and sucking each other's nipples... Come to http://AdultFriendFinder.com to read the rest of this hot girl on girl success story. Simply log in and go to the Adult Magazine to read and submit your own success story, or check out advice questions and answers and more! ------------------------------------------------------- Love movies but hate the Blockbuster experience? Try NETFLIX - the online DVD rental store * Choose from Action, Comedy, Mature over 10,000 titles * Free shipping to your home * Easy prepaid return envelopes * No due dates, No late fees Click below to try NETFLIX for FREE! www.netflix.com/default.asp?mqso=60137626 ------------------------------------------------------- Adult Friend Finder is part of an online network of sites offering personals services to millions of members. These popular sites include the following: http://alt.com - BDSM personals http://friendfinder.com - Dating personals http://asiafriendfinder.com - Asian personals http://amigos.com - Spanish personals http://outpersonals.com - Gay personals http://likemynudephoto.com - Rate Adult Friend Finder photos http://germanfriendfinder.com - German personals http://filipinofriendfinder.com - Tagalog personals http://koreanfriendfinder.com - Korean personals http://frenchfriendfinder.com - French personals http://bigchurch.com - Religious personals http://friendpages.com - Free Network community homepages http://friendparty.com - Free party invites and photos http://nudecards.com - Free and sexy e-greeting cards ------------------------------------------------------- Adult Friend Finder is anti-spam. This email was sent to you in association with your member name, oddodoodo at Adult Friend Finder. If you have received this email in error, use your handle and password to log-in at http://AdultFriendFinder.com. Go to your 'Update' area and click on the appropriate text links to designate your mailing preferences. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 11646 bytes Desc: not available URL: From declan at well.com Tue Aug 14 07:37:21 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:37:21 -0400 Subject: FC: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report Message-ID: Background from Politech archives: "Net-sex NRC panel asks for testimony, will hold regional mtgs" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01852.html "Patricia Nell Warren's comments to NAS porn panel" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01615.html "National Academy of Sciences panel hears about porn & kids" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01571.html "Free speech advocates fret about NAS Net-porn commission" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01567.html ******** From declan at well.com Tue Aug 14 08:30:46 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:30:46 -0400 Subject: FC: Organized crime groups going online, report says -- beware! Message-ID: Excerpts: >Indeed, it is possible that some jurisdictions will >increasingly seek to exploit a permissive attitude to attract >business, creating information safe havens (paralleling offshore tax >havens and bank secrecy jurisdictions) that make it difficult for law >enforcement to follow information trails, and offering insulated >cyber-business operations from which illicit businesses can operate >with a minimum of interference. >In addition, of course, organized crime groups use the Internet for >communications (usually encrypted) and for any other purposes when >they see it as useful and profitable. Indeed, organized crime is >proving as flexible and adaptable in its exploitation of >cyberopportunities as it is in any other opportunities for illegal >activity. The implications are far-reaching and require a response >from government that is strategic, multi-level, multilateral, and >transnational in nature. >The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, >largely supported by the United States, is the first major step in >this direction and can be understood as the beginning of the process >of setting norms and standards that national governments ultimately >will be expected to meet in their legislative, regulatory, and >enforcement efforts. Background on Council of Europe treaty: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02173.html -Declan ********** From declan at well.com Tue Aug 14 08:35:49 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:35:49 -0400 Subject: Organized crime groups going online, report says -- beware! Message-ID: <20010814113549.A24058@cluebot.com> ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh ----- From declan at well.com Tue Aug 14 08:36:16 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:36:16 -0400 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report Message-ID: <20010814113616.B24058@cluebot.com> ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh ----- From ForgetMeNot.Divulgacao at via-rs.net Tue Aug 14 08:08:46 2001 From: ForgetMeNot.Divulgacao at via-rs.net ("Espao Vital & Mpsoft" > O Espa�o Vital - p�gina do Jornal do Com�rcio especializada em casos judiciais - al�m de sua forma gr�fica tradicional (publica��o �s 3as. e 6as.feiras) est� tendo atualiza��o di�ria na Internet. Acessando www.EspacoVital.com (sem br), ou lendo o Jornal do Com�rcio, Voc� toma contato com algumas das mais importantes decis�es da Justi�a. E clicando na base de dados, pode dispor de elementos (n�mero do processo, por exemplo) que lhe podem auxiliar em sua pesquisa de jurisprud�ncia. Nesta semana, por exemplo, estamos disponibilizando parte nuclear da senten�a do juiz federal de Curitiba que encontrou uma inteligente f�rmula para baixar as presta��es habitacionais. No Espa�o Vital do Jornal do Com�rcio (cujo texto desta 3a. feira, 14 de agosto) lhe estamos enviando, aqui, adiante, por via virtual, h� uma publica��o de peculiar interesse dos advogados, porque trata de seus honor�rios. Tamb�m o registro de um lament�vel assalto contra o escrit�rio do colega Fernando Magnus, em Po! rt! o Alegre. Para agregar o Espa�o Vital aos seus favoritos, clique no link adiante: Atenciosamente, MPSoft Sistemas Administrador do Site www.EspacoVital.com Not�cias desta 3a.feira no Espa�o Vital: Indeniza��o para pedreiro preso abusivamente por PMs �Clientes� assaltantes Interessante precedente sobre honor�rios Tr�s decis�es contra a atua��o do fisco estadual Caso n�o queira mais receber este informativo, por gentileza, simplesmente RESPONDA (REPLY) com ASSUNTO: REMOVER. Gratos. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3224 bytes Desc: not available URL: From culture990 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 13:29:56 2001 From: culture990 at yahoo.com (gene mcwhorter) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: stuffing envelopes Message-ID: <20010814202956.12609.qmail@web12505.mail.yahoo.com> any information that you can ssend me on stuffing envelopes for money would be very heplful My e-mail: culture990 at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org Tue Aug 14 10:49:39 2001 From: jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org (James B. DiGriz) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh ----- > > > > From: Declan McCullagh > > Subject: FC: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report > > To: politech at politechbot.com > > Cc: HLin at nas.edu > > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:37:21 -0400 > > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 > > X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/ > > > > Background from Politech archives: > > > > "Net-sex NRC panel asks for testimony, will hold regional mtgs" > > http://www.politechbot.com/p-01852.html > > > > "Patricia Nell Warren's comments to NAS porn panel" > > http://www.politechbot.com/p-01615.html > > > > "National Academy of Sciences panel hears about porn & kids" > > http://www.politechbot.com/p-01571.html > > > > "Free speech advocates fret about NAS Net-porn commission" > > http://www.politechbot.com/p-01567.html > > > > This is science??? > > What I want to know is: what color should the pantaloons on the piano legs > be? > > jbdigriz > Let me elaborate: Panels, meetings, testimony...where's the research? What is even being studied here? This sounds like a "problem" fumbling around until it reaches a critical consensus of definition. The opportunities for shenanigans, for good or ill, should be evident. Personally, I was a horny little fucker as a kid. I won't say when exactly, but the the lurid pulp covers at my eye level at the time tended to focus on Ilsa the she-bitch of the SS S&M type themes. I DID find this somewhat disturbing, if fascinating. It was not till sometime later that a friend and I discovered his father's Playboy collection (my old man kept his stash a lot better hidden) and I was exposed to more gratifyingly wholesome images. I can't say that any of it did me any harm, though. Anecdotal, to be sure, but it tallies with my observations of children in recent years, whether watching cable, surfing, or whatever. I know there are folks who won't abide it, but they will be better served by Consumer Reports. And so I've said my say, jbdigriz From Stealth123 at btamail.net.cn Tue Aug 14 13:50:16 2001 From: Stealth123 at btamail.net.cn (Stealth123 at btamail.net.cn) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:50:16 -0700 Subject: Programmers Available Now! Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5274 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 14 13:53:58 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:53:58 -0700 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108142053.f7EKrfC07440@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 01:22 PM, James B. DiGriz wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote: > >> >> And so I've said my say, >> jbdigriz >> > > Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now. > > Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting > in > the wind here. I haven't heard this kind of deafening silence since the > time I told my lawyer the church job was a frame up and who did the > framing. He didn't believe me, but he found out I was right. (I think > his > point then was "yeah, so?", but he got us off without a trial. Damn > sharp > attorney, that one.) First, people are less likely to respond to whimsical nyms, even a stainless steel rat. Second, you comment on Declan's forwarding of a forwarding of a Herb Lin call for reviewers for some study his group is doing. Ho hum. Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. have been discussed many times here. Fourth, Cypherpunks are probably more interested in making sure Big Bro can't block porn, via technical means, than in advising Herb Lin on yet another study. Fifth, you expressed your view of Herb's study. Absent some point, what is there is to discuss? Sixth, you're always welcome to post more. Some things generate interest, some don't. Don't sweat the posts that don't. I don't. --Tim May From amaha at vsnl.net Tue Aug 14 12:00:42 2001 From: amaha at vsnl.net (Fountain Of Joy) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:00:42 -0500 Subject: Thought-A-Day Message-ID: <200108141900.f7EJ0fU05021@ak47.algebra.com> The shortest and best way to make your fortune is to let people see clearly that it is in their interests to promote yours. --Jean de la Bruyere ========================================================== Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Joy. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period of 60 days+.We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will make your life peaceful,successful & happy in a way you had never imagined before. If you have received this email in error & if you wish to unsubscribe, reply with 'remove' in the subject line or click mailto:amaha at vsnl.net?subject=remove Director Fountain of Joy ========================================================== From rbrown1210 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 14 13:24:44 2001 From: rbrown1210 at hotmail.com (rbrown1210 at hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:24:44 -0500 Subject: Health Care Expenses Too High? Now You Have A Choice ! Message-ID: <200108142024.PAA16765@hebe.host4u.net> HealthCare Expenses Too High? Now You Have A Choice! Spam Prevention Notice: Either you, or someone using this address, signed you on to this list. For immediate email address list removal, please do not press "reply" to this email, it will not remove your email address - see the instructions right after the message. --------------------------------- The Future of Health Care -- Today.. Care Entree is a Healthcare Savings Program that can save you 20% to 80% on all your health care needs, including physicians and hospitals. GUARANTEED SAVINGS. This is not an insurance plan, but a patient advocacy program that will minimize your out-of-pocket health care expenses. For membership applications only, email healthcare4u2 at hotmail.com For information on how you can help predominately black high schools to use Care Entree as a fund raiser, email healthcare4HS at hotmail.com What can Care Entr�e do for you? Provide a way to get health care that you can afford! For Small Business, Families and Individuals, this includes Medical, Dental, Hospitalization, Vision, Long Term Care and more. Our most popular program is the $40/Monthly Power Program. Can you trust Care Entree with your health care needs? Yes! Care Entree is the 5th Largest PPO Network Nationwide. A Better Business Bureau Online Reliability Program, it has been operating profitably throughout its history. Sounds good to you? For more information, visit to this web site: http://ourworld-top.cs.com/rbrown1205/myhomepage/business.html ------------------------- Your email address was provided from an opt-in list of addresses of persons who are interested in African American Education. To remove from the list, please don't reply to this email, it will not remove your email address - click on the link below: Thank you for your time. Click on the link below to remove yourself via your web browser (which should launch automatically) http://www.sendthisfree.com/cgi-bin/maxuseradmin.cgi?function=manualdelete3&email=cypherpunks at toad.com&un=healthcare4u A confirmation screen will show that your email was deleted. In case the browser doesn't start or doesn't show the correct information, select the whole URL line (or lines if it is presented over more than one line) with your mouse, cut and paste it into your browser's address bar and hit enter from there. From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 14 15:32:06 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:32:06 -0700 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <20010814173619.A728@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108142231.f7EMVvC08027@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 02:36 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. >> have been discussed many times here. > > The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less > important than the Meese commission, more important than the COPA > Commission). While it may be of passing interest to cypherpunks, many > of these topics have been discussed before, as Tim says, which > explains why there's little reaction. > And there is, after all, VERY LITTLE that such a study should do. Some people don't like porn, some people like it. Some subscribe to porn sites, some surf for free, some even generate online and other porn. Some people don't want their husbands to access porn. Some don't mind. Some don't want their children to access porn. Some don't mind. Some people don't want bookstores to carry "To Kill a Mockingbird," some people don't want them to carry "Lolita." Some don't mind. However, in a free society with protections similar to the First Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what government may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows government to regulate speech or music or any other such form of expression based on its offensiveness to some. Nothing. (The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the "online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may be banned.) "For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. Or that children not be allowed to enter bookstore's containing images and text deemed unaccepable by some. Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether I included material "offensive" to Creationists. Nothing in the First Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something called "The National Research Council" is getting involved in this. By the way, this is an area which is ideal for an analysis using Larry Lessig's "tripod" of "Custom" vs. "Law" vs. "Technology." I wrote about Lessig's model a few years ago. (I haven't read his latest book, "Code," so I don't how he fleshes out the idea....I have combined it with my own models. Maybe I'll write up some thoughts. (Not for Herb Lin, of course. Nothing against him, but these "studies" are usually just opinion polls and are crushingly boring reads. I tried to read the NRC's "Crypto" report...even went to the Palo Alto unveiling. B-o-r-i-n-g!) --Tim May From ravage at ssz.com Tue Aug 14 13:51:16 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:51:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting In-Reply-To: <20010814081110.A6241@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Eric Murray wrote: > It's easier to write a rant than it is to write code, but > code is what counts. Actually unless somebody (even the programmer) is ranting there is no motivation for writing code. Code solves a problem, a problem requires somebody to bitch about it. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 14 15:51:18 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:51:18 -0700 Subject: If we had key escrow, Scarfo wouldn't be a problem In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010814180334.00a96090@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <200108142251.f7EMp3C08127@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 03:03 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > The Washington Post finally catches on to the fact that the Scarfo case > exists, a few weeks after everyone else wrote about the hearing in > Newark. The front-page story today by Jonathan Krim contains this > memorable passage: > > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55606-2001Aug9.html > "Encryption is virtually unbreakable by police today, with programs > that can be bought for $15," said Stewart Baker, former general counsel > of the National Security Agency and now partner at the Washington law > firm Steptoe & Johnson. Although agreeing that surveillance should be > done under strict guidelines, Baker said that "to a degree, the privacy > groups got us into this by arguing that there should be no limits on > encryption, and the police have to deal with it." > Not that anyone had any doubts about the ultimate intentions of the "key escrow" people, but it's useful to remember what the _ostensible_ goals were, and then compare it with what Stewart Baker is saying above. Item: the "key escrow" controversy arose with Clipper, the _telephone_ system to be sold by AT&T containing the Clipper chip made by Mykotronx. Item: anyone think Scafo or his pals would have bought such a Clipperphone? Item: even a few years later, when the key escrow issue surfaced with _software_, there was no plausible way that the horses already out of the barn (*) could have been herded back into the barn and made to incorporate Skipjack or any other "key escrow" features. (* The horses being: a vast number of already-deployed laptops, PCs, modems, cellphones, cable modems, satellite phones, PDAs, etc. What was the government to do, tell people to turn in their laptops? Banning crypto use, and enforcing such a ban in the face of millions of users of unskipjacked machines, would be very difficult. Stego would make it even harder to detect and enforce.) Item: the key escrow thing never got out of the NSA dreaming stages. No legislation was ever introduced (nothing serious, at least...one can never count out bizarre fliers). The massive logistical and technical and _CONSTITUTIONAL_ issues were the reason a key escrow law never got proposed. The "privacy groups" pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes, but a real proposed law never would've gotten anywhere. Only a police state could "ban" unescrowed crypto. Only places like Russia, South Africa, and Britain. (And they will find enforcement and what it does to their communications infrastructures to be daunting problems.) --Tim May From mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu Tue Aug 14 09:20:25 2001 From: mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu (lcs Mixmaster Remailer) Date: 14 Aug 2001 16:20:25 -0000 Subject: Remailer logs Message-ID: <20010814162025.10141.qmail@nym.alias.net> Black Unicorn writes very persuasively about the problems a remailer operator could face in court: > Mr. Smith, do you charge for users of the remailer? > So is it safe to say that you don't intent to profit from this service? > Then your motivation for running the service is... to help people destroy > evidence then? > Ok, sorry your honor, withdrawn. > Then your motivation for running this service is definitely not for profit? > You're a good citizen, as it were? > Yes, of course you are. > You destroy all logs about users of the service, isn't that correct? > Excuse me, you "fail to record" any information about users of the service? > I'm confused. Someone sends an electronic mail to your service, it has a > "reply to" or a "from" header on it when it arrives, correct? > But before sending it on to its destination, you destroy this information, > correct? > Excuse me. Delete it. Whatever. I see. > So people would use this service to mask their identity, if they didn't want > to be responsible for the content they are sending perhaps? > And someone committing a crime, something untraceable, they would be able to > hide behind your service wouldn't they? > But that is a risk of running the service yes? > What about, say a drug deal? > A death threat? > Something libelous? > So wouldn't it be safe to say that a reasonable person might expect some abuse > of such a service by criminals? > Isn't it true that you have an abuse at blah.net address to deal with this > precise eventuality? > So you expected there might be legal problems? > blah blah blah Most of the replies have missed or evaded his points, relying on classic stubborn cypherpunk libertarianism. "I don't got to justify nuttin' I do, screw you officer." Or the whiny, "But Microsoft does it, why can't I???" BU points out that you DO have to justify what you do, like it or not, and that Microsoft DID get in trouble for these practices. The point which has not been made clearly is that despite the legal arguments against remailers which BU raises above, there are strong legal arguments in favor of remailers as well. It is these positive arguments which we must rely on in a legal context. Head in the sand libertarianism won't help. Remailers exist to provide for the possibility of anonymous communication in a medium where it is otherwise impossible. They are an attempt to extend the status quo for other forms of communication into electronic mail. The do not introduce new challenges or threats into society. Rather, they preserve existing capabilities as we move into a new medium of communication. Due to its technical nature, electronic mail is inherently traceable. Every step in the communication involves recording where the message came from. This allows the mail to be traced back to its source. Remailers exist solely to remove this traceability and to therefore provide for anonymous communication in the medium of electronic mail. Anonymous communication exists and has always existed in many other forms. Postal mail, physical delivery of anonymous notes, posting handbills, passing out leaflets, all have been traditional methods for propagating information anonymously. Every one of the bad consequences of anonymity listed above exists with these other forms of anonymous communications. Terrorists, blackmailers, criminals of all stripes use the postal service. Anonymous publication of unpopular political arguments has occured since the founding days of this country. Anonymity is nothing new in the world. Courts have consistently declared that anonymous speech is a protected right. See for example the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case McIntyre vs Ohio, http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/mcintyre_v_ohio.decision, which relies on Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 (1960). By providing anonymity in a medium where it would otherwise not be present, remailers join technologies which "have played an important role in the progress of mankind" (quoting the Talley decision). Any legal action against a remailer would attract interest from scholars and political groups all over the net. First amendment experts, free speech experts, civil liberties groups, all will support the remailer with arguments and briefs. Chances are that financial support will be available as well. BU's "gray haired Reagan appointee" judge is going to be operating in a fishbowl of media attention and legal advice. He needs to be very careful to stick to the legalities knowing that any decision against the remailer will be appealed and backed up by the many interest groups who will be watching the case. These are the kinds of issues which any defense of a remailer will need to rely on in the courtroom. Cypherpunk attitudes of "I don't need to keep no stinkin' logs if I don't feel like it," won't go far. It's a legal and political issue and that is how the battle must be fought. From squid at panix.com Tue Aug 14 13:20:34 2001 From: squid at panix.com (Yeoh Yiu) Date: 14 Aug 2001 16:20:34 -0400 Subject: bugging IM, as reported in Red Herring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fatbubble says, "Privacy? You're in control. You decide who sees where you surf. Turn on fatbubble Invisibility when you need it. Your buddies won't know you're there." as seen in Red Herring ... FATBUBBLE http://www.fatbubble.com San Francisco FUNDING: $370K PRIOR FUNDING: Low seed ROUND: 1st CATEGORY: Software DESCRIPTION: Develops monitoring software applications for instant messaging (IM) platforms. LEAD INVESTORS: Two Japanese angels, Jun Makihara and Joichi Ito OTHER INVESTORS: None THE HERRING TAKE: Fatbubble has designed a monitoring software solution that collects anonymous information on users and sells it to marketers. But there's a twist. Instead of following Net surfers, Fatbubble is tracking the navigational habits of IM users. "We're building vast behavioral maps that track the movements and influences among a large network of users," says CEO and cofounder Brady Bruce. The implications for marketers and consumers are vast, and call into question privacy concerns. The affable chief declares sternly that Fatbubble is not intercepting IM discussions. Rather, the startup is charting the Web destination points that IM users visit. Once this information is collected, it'll sell it to marketers. Thus far, that's Fatbubble's only revenue stream, as the software is available for free. Mr. Brady harbors grand plans for his modest startup and will launch his product first in the States later this summer, and then take it to Japan and Western Europe. Fatbubble is burning $8,000 per month and has a post-money valuation of $3.5 million. The startup is looking to raise $3 million for its second round. Mr. Brady will consider all offers. --R.B.R. From jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org Tue Aug 14 13:22:44 2001 From: jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org (James B. DiGriz) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:22:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote: > > And so I've said my say, > jbdigriz > Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now. Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting in the wind here. I haven't heard this kind of deafening silence since the time I told my lawyer the church job was a frame up and who did the framing. He didn't believe me, but he found out I was right. (I think his point then was "yeah, so?", but he got us off without a trial. Damn sharp attorney, that one.) If you're worried I'm trolling for pedos or something, or if you're some kind of amateur detective like I'm told reads the list, or an armchair psychoanalyst like the ones the FBI hires as consultants, no I don't make a habit of turning the kiddies on to porn, and fuck no I don't let 'em surf using my account. I won't turn off the Playboy channel when they come in the house, unless mommy's with them or something. Well, that depends on the mommy. I was just commenting on what I observe people letting their kids watch and do. jbdigriz From bear at sonic.net Tue Aug 14 16:34:31 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Organized crime groups going online, report says -- beware! In-Reply-To: <20010814113549.A24058@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: >----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh ----- >>In addition, of course, organized crime groups use the Internet for >>communications (usually encrypted) and for any other purposes when >>they see it as useful and profitable. Indeed, organized crime is >>proving as flexible and adaptable in its exploitation of >>cyberopportunities as it is in any other opportunities for illegal >>activity. Just a note here, but this is one of the most common stereotypes about organized crime figures, and it's just not true. These guys are businessmen -- they won't turn down a deal just because it happens to be legal. Organized crime figures are proving flexible and adaptable in their exploitation of opportunities to make a profit -- they are not interested in "illegal activity" exclusively, they just don't give a damn whether a given opportunity happens to be legal or not. Bear From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 14 17:15:54 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:15:54 -0700 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <20010814191718.A2851@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108150015.f7F0FaC08428@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 04:17 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:32:06PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block >> certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something >> called "The National Research Council" is getting involved in this. > > The NRC is very prestigious. It is part of the even more prestigious > National Academies, which includes the Nataional Academy of Sciences, > the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. > I doubt the "prestigious" part, at least out here in the boondocks of Silicon Valley. Herb Lin may be a nice enough droid, but he certainly wouldn't be an attractive hire to the Intels, Ciscos, Ebays, Oracles, and others in the Valley. The last Washington insider hired by a Valley company was, IIRC, Joe Lockhart, former press secretary to Clinton. Larry Ellison hired him to do something vice presidential at Oracle. He lasted several months, then left "to spend more time with his family" or somesuch. (If I'm wrong about it being Lockhart, I'm definitely right about it being Oracle. A search should turn up the details.) The National Research Council is inconsequential, which is why they are now carrying water for the anti=porn crusaders. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 14 17:22:13 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:22:13 -0700 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <20010814191802.B2851@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108150021.f7F0LrC08473@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 04:18 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:50:37PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote: >> Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting >> projections and interpretations on the part of the reader. But, as you >> say, ho hum. Presumably it is to give "scientific backing" to whatever >> position Congress wants to take on upcoming issues and legislation, >> and to >> couch various, no doubt conflicting, agendas in scientific >> doublespeak. Excuse my cynicism, but that's the way it looks to me. > > No cynicism necessary. That's what's probably going to happen. Which is what the NRC did with the crypto issue. They sensed which way the wind was blowing (anti-Clipper, by 80% plus if I remember the opinion polls correctly) and came out with a report which massaged the inputs in such a way as to come out against key escrow. If the opinion polls, weighted appropriately by inputs from media conglomerates, conclude that regulation of access to speech is advisable, then the NRC will issue a suitably-weighty report outlining the issues and presenting Congress with options for regulating speech and access to speech. --Tim May From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 14 15:24:19 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:24:19 -0500 Subject: Organized crime groups going online, report says -- beware! In-Reply-To: <20010814113549.A24058@cluebot.com> Message-ID: ....it's The Seven Seals..... > A fifth trend that we can expect to see is what might be termed > jurisdictional arbitrage. > A sixth trend is that the Internet is increasingly likely to be used > for money laundering. > A seventh trend involves growing network connections between hackers > or small-time criminals and organized crime. I wonder if they could get me off Windows. From grocha at neutraldomain.org Tue Aug 14 17:34:09 2001 From: grocha at neutraldomain.org (Gabriel Rocha) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:34:09 -0700 Subject: food fo thought Message-ID: <20010814173409.D55074@neutraldomain.org> I figure this list is as good a place as any if not better to discuss this one. It is off of /. today. Just thinking that these ethos do still apply, in my mind anyway. What needs to happen for them to be true is education of the general population (Yes, I know it is a naive idea.) Perhaps the day will come when a great enough (howvere small it may be) percentage of web users are in f act savvy and somewhat computer educated to manage to circumvent the bonds placed upon them, wether it will be legally or not, the times will decide. --gabe http://www.technologyreview.com/magazine/sep01/mann.asp Taming the Web By Charles C. Mann September 2001 "Information wants to be free." "The Internet can't be controlled." We've heard it so often that we sometimes take for granted that it's true. But THE INTERNET CAN BE CONTROLLED, and those who argue otherwise are hastening the day when it will be controlled too much, by the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons. -- "It's not brave, if you're not scared." From declan at well.com Tue Aug 14 14:36:19 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:36:19 -0400 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <200108142053.f7EKrfC07440@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700 References: <200108142053.f7EKrfC07440@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010814173619.A728@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. > have been discussed many times here. The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less important than the Meese commission, more important than the COPA Commission). While it may be of passing interest to cypherpunks, many of these topics have been discussed before, as Tim says, which explains why there's little reaction. -Declan From jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org Tue Aug 14 14:50:37 2001 From: jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org (James B. DiGriz) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <200108142053.f7EKrfC07440@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 01:22 PM, James B. DiGriz wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote: > > > >> > >> And so I've said my say, > >> jbdigriz > >> > > > > Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now. > > > > Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting > > in > > the wind here. I haven't heard this kind of deafening silence since the > > time I told my lawyer the church job was a frame up and who did the > > framing. He didn't believe me, but he found out I was right. (I think > > his > > point then was "yeah, so?", but he got us off without a trial. Damn > > sharp > > attorney, that one.) > > First, people are less likely to respond to whimsical nyms, even a > stainless steel rat. > Ouch, whimsical. Let's just say that keeping the character in mind tempers my comments. Believe it or not. > Second, you comment on Declan's forwarding of a forwarding of a Herb Lin > call for reviewers for some study his group is doing. Ho hum. > Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting projections and interpretations on the part of the reader. But, as you say, ho hum. Presumably it is to give "scientific backing" to whatever position Congress wants to take on upcoming issues and legislation, and to couch various, no doubt conflicting, agendas in scientific doublespeak. Excuse my cynicism, but that's the way it looks to me. > > Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. > have been discussed many times here. > No doubt everyone is tired of it, then. No problem. > Fourth, Cypherpunks are probably more interested in making sure Big Bro > can't block porn, via technical means, than in advising Herb Lin on yet > another study. > Or blocking anything else in particular. I concur. > Fifth, you expressed your view of Herb's study. Absent some point, what > is there is to discuss? > Mainly I was wondering if others were as dubious as I am at moment about the apparent level of integrity of the NAS. I should research this matter more myself, I admit. If I'm not giving Herb proper credit, even if I remain skeptical of the institution, I'll be the first to say so. > Sixth, you're always welcome to post more. Some things generate > interest, some don't. Don't sweat the posts that don't. I don't. > Point taken. Thanks for the response. jbdigriz From jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org Tue Aug 14 14:57:11 2001 From: jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org (James B. DiGriz) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:57:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <20010814173619.A728@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > > Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. > > have been discussed many times here. > > The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less > important than the Meese commission, more important than the COPA > Commission). While it may be of passing interest to cypherpunks, many > of these topics have been discussed before, as Tim says, which > explains why there's little reaction. > > -Declan > Gotcha. jbdigriz From a3495 at cotse.com Tue Aug 14 15:02:17 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer +Distributed Terascale Facility Message-ID: Tim wrote: On Sunday, August 12, 2001, at 02:41 PM, Faustine wrote: > >>> Cryptographically speaking, *yawn*. > > "Fairly impressive" in that it's better than what I've got in my > basement > right now. And for me, part of the appeal lies in the satisfaction of > putting something like that together entirely yourself out of components > other people considered worthless and discarded. Not to mention being > able > to use it for whatever you want, whenever you want, without depending on > anyone else's machine: a wonderful blend of self-sufficiency, ingenuity > and megalomania, ha. >>So, are you now claiming you plan to build one? Why else the "part of >>the appeal lies in the satisfaction of" bit? As a way to address the implicit question "why would anybody ever want to build a thing like that". For what it's worth, at one point I was tantalizingly close to getting my hands on a donation of 53 G3s. Unfortunately it fell through, but if an offer like that ever happens to come my way again, I can't really say I'd turn it down. If someone else is convinced it's interesting enough to be willing to foot the power bill (as I had anticipated would be the case), where's the downside? Nobody thinks strategically enough to see why they'd be better off buying me a few shiny new G4s instead. Since I know that's 100% out of the realm of possiblity, it's better to be resourceful and take whatever I can get: more CPU power than I have now (or am likely to get adequate access to in the near future). I might have even been able to turn around and share/rent time on it to other "low-priority" people like myself who're just out to further their own research without getting underfoot elsewhere. Not a bad idea, at any rate. I still maintain that the lure of tinkering and scavaging is a large part of the appeal anyway. If it leaves you flat and, being rich and retired, have far better ways to spend your time, to each his own. ~Faustine. From declan at well.com Tue Aug 14 15:03:41 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:03:41 -0400 Subject: If we had key escrow, Scarfo wouldn't be a problem Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010814180334.00a96090@mail.well.com> The Washington Post finally catches on to the fact that the Scarfo case exists, a few weeks after everyone else wrote about the hearing in Newark. The front-page story today by Jonathan Krim contains this memorable passage: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55606-2001Aug9.html "Encryption is virtually unbreakable by police today, with programs that can be bought for $15," said Stewart Baker, former general counsel of the National Security Agency and now partner at the Washington law firm Steptoe & Johnson. Although agreeing that surveillance should be done under strict guidelines, Baker said that "to a degree, the privacy groups got us into this by arguing that there should be no limits on encryption, and the police have to deal with it." -Declan From tbwow at yahoo.com Tue Aug 14 17:02:54 2001 From: tbwow at yahoo.com (tbwow at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:02:54 -0500 Subject: read me before you send away Message-ID: <997815774@tbem> Dear Friends & Future Millionaire:AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV:Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for aninvestment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time THANK'S TO THE COMPUTER AGEAND THE INTERNET !=========================================================== ==============BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!!Before you say ''Bull'', please read the following. This is the letter you havebeen hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter onthe Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show tothe investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can makepeople money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal.Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Lawsprohibiting the participation in the program and if people can -follow thesimple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out ofpocket cost''.DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, ITIS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER.This is what one had to say: ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I wasapproached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad Ifinally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimaleffort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $610,470.00 in21 weeks, with money still coming in."Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey.====================================================== ===================Here is another testimonial: "This program has been around for a long time but Inever believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail Idecided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa..... 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made$240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far,in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow thesimple steps and NOT change anything.'' More testimonials later but first,===== PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE ======$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily andcomfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE,GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS:=====Order all 5 reports shown on the list below =====For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERINGand YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next tothe report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER incase of any mail problems.=== When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. Youwill need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resellthem. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00.Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessiblefor you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also makea floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen toyour computer.IMPORTANT - DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to eachreport, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructedbelow in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will loose out on majority of yourprofits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it doesnot work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if youalter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put their friends/relativesnames on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not workthis way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened.So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if youdo, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!!1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVEthe name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it throughthe cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune.2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5.3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4.4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3.5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 26.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SUREyou copy every name & address ACCURATELY!=============================================== ==========================**** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it onyour computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES.Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data. To assist youwith marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase willprovide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to sendbulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and muchmore.There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going:METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY==================================================== =====================Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we willassume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's alsoassume that the mailing receive only a 0.2% response (the response could be muchbetter but lets just say it is only 0.2%. Also many people will send outhundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each).Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.2%response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded bysending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mailsonly 0.2% responded with orders. That's=100 people responded and ordered Report# 2.Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails.The 0.2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3.Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mailssent out.The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4.Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50million) e-mails.The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half million).Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 +4. $50,000 + 5..... $500,000 ........ Grand Total=$555,550.00NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLERESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY!==================================================== =====================REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOUMAILED TO.Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even one 4thof those people mailed 100,000e-mails each or more? There are over 150 millionpeople on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will dojust that, and more!METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET================================================== =======================Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREEplaces to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get alarger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD #2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do ise-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day serviceon all orders.This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address onit, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report.=========== AVAILABLE REPORTS ===========================================ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY.Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted.Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. Onone of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you areordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address.PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW :=========================================================== ==============REPORT # 1: "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net"Order Report #1 from:T.B.6011-B shadow valley cove___Austin, Texas 78731 USA_ use www.paypals.com pay to tbwow at yahoo.com to get started now! ___________________________________________________________ ____________________REPORT # 2: "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net"Order Report # 2 from:J. R.4237 C Jefferson Oak CircleFairfax, VA 22033USA___________________________________________________ ________________________________REPORT # 3: "Secret to Multilevel Marketing on the Net"Order Report # 3 from :D.J.16 Northcrest Drive,London, ONTARIO, CANADAN5X 3V8________________________________________________________ ___________________________REPORT # 4: "How to Become a Millionaire Utilizing MLM & the Net"Order Report # 4 from:E. ZurbiggRR 1St Marys, ONN4X 1C4________________________________________________________ ___________________________REPORT #5: "How to Send Out 0ne Million e-mails for Free"Order Report # 5 from:A. EbertR.R. #4Thamesford, Ontario,CanadaN0M 2M0________________________________________________________ ___________________________$$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success:=== If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks,continue sending e-mails until you do.=== After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you shouldreceive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertisingor sending e-mails until you do.=== Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX,because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue toroll in ! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER:Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of aDifferent report.You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are orderingfrom you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS ANDSTART THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN.There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!!========================================================== ===============FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: You have just receivedinformation that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, withNO RISK and JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT. You can make more money in the next fewweeks and months than you have ever imagined. Follow the program EXACTLY ASINSTRUCTED. Do Not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now.Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report after you have put your nameand address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........#5 as instructedabove. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mailsand your name will be on every one of them.Remember though, the more you send out the more potential customers you willreach. So my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials andopportunity to become financially independent. IT IS UP TO YOU NOW !============ MORE TESTIMONIALS ================"My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountantwith a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money.When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail''. Imade fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population andpercentages involved. I ''knew'' it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored mysupposed intelligence and few days later she jumped in with both feet. I mademerciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so'' on her whenthe thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she hadreceived 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received total $147,200.00 ........... all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her''hobby''.Mitchell Wolf M.D., Chicago, Illinois======================================================= ==================''Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind toparticipate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initialinvestment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enoughorders to at least get my money back''. '' I was surprised when I found mymedium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00in the first12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where peoplelive. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big."Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada===================================================== ===================''I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if Ishould have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to getanother copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someoneelse.........11 months passed then it luckily came again...... I did not deletethis one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money camewithin 22 weeks."Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y.======================================================== ================''It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with littlecost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days themoney started to come in. My first month I made$20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $362,840.00.Life is beautiful, Thanx to internet.".Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand===================================================== ====================ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON 'YOUR' ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM !=========================================================== ==============If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office ofAssociate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau ofConsumer Protection, Washington, D.C.(Note: To avoid delays make sure appropriate postage to Canada is applied ifmailing from the US)-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=Remove Instructions=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=************************************************** ************************************Do not reply to this message -To be removed from future mailings:mailto:2000tips at eurosport.com?Subject=Remove******************** ******************************************************************/////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////ONE TIME MAILING, NO NEED TO REMOVE////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////This message is sent in compliance of the proposed bill SECTION 301. per Section301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618. This message is not intended for residentsin the State of Washington, screening of addresses has been done to the best ofour technical ability.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- | o | Free bulk email software!! | o | Message composed with MassMailX | o | Get your own copy at | o | http://r2software.home.ml.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------- From news_4693+377250.171836996.3 at reply.tm0.com Tue Aug 14 18:15:54 2001 From: news_4693+377250.171836996.3 at reply.tm0.com (News From Michael Jackson) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:15:54 MDT Subject: The Latest News from the King of Pop! Message-ID: <5.921.5.0.0.15789.997838154@sender07.lodo.exactis.com> This mailing is based on your providing opt-in/subscriber requests to receive this kind of information from one of our associated websites. ------------------------------------ Great news from the King of Pop! Michael Jackson reaches out to his global fan community: Dernières nouvelles du Roi de la Pop! Michael Jackson plus que jamais proche de ses fans du monde entier: Brandheiße News vom King of Pop! Michael Jackson geht interaktiv auf seine Fans zu: ¡Informaciones exclusivas del Rey del Pop! Michael Jackson se aproximara a todos sus aficionados del mundo: http://tm0.com/4693/sbct.cgi?s=171836996&i=377250&d=1645823 ----------------------------- If you no longer wish to receive any of our mailings reply to this message with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5146 bytes Desc: not available URL: From news_4693+377250.171836992.3 at reply.tm0.com Tue Aug 14 18:15:54 2001 From: news_4693+377250.171836992.3 at reply.tm0.com (News From Michael Jackson) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:15:54 MDT Subject: The Latest News from the King of Pop! Message-ID: <5.919.5.0.0.15789.997838154@sender07.lodo.exactis.com> This mailing is based on your providing opt-in/subscriber requests to receive this kind of information from one of our associated websites. ------------------------------------ Great news from the King of Pop! Michael Jackson reaches out to his global fan community: Dernières nouvelles du Roi de la Pop! Michael Jackson plus que jamais proche de ses fans du monde entier: Brandheiße News vom King of Pop! Michael Jackson geht interaktiv auf seine Fans zu: ¡Informaciones exclusivas del Rey del Pop! Michael Jackson se aproximara a todos sus aficionados del mundo: http://tm0.com/4693/sbct.cgi?s=171836992&i=377250&d=1645823 ----------------------------- If you no longer wish to receive any of our mailings reply to this message with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5146 bytes Desc: not available URL: From news_4693+377250.171836993.3 at reply.tm0.com Tue Aug 14 18:15:54 2001 From: news_4693+377250.171836993.3 at reply.tm0.com (News From Michael Jackson) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:15:54 MDT Subject: The Latest News from the King of Pop! Message-ID: <5.2315.5.0.0.4985.997838154@sender18.lodo.exactis.com> This mailing is based on your providing opt-in/subscriber requests to receive this kind of information from one of our associated websites. ------------------------------------ Great news from the King of Pop! Michael Jackson reaches out to his global fan community: Dernières nouvelles du Roi de la Pop! Michael Jackson plus que jamais proche de ses fans du monde entier: Brandheiße News vom King of Pop! Michael Jackson geht interaktiv auf seine Fans zu: ¡Informaciones exclusivas del Rey del Pop! Michael Jackson se aproximara a todos sus aficionados del mundo: http://tm0.com/4693/sbct.cgi?s=171836993&i=377250&d=1645823 ----------------------------- If you no longer wish to receive any of our mailings reply to this message with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5146 bytes Desc: not available URL: From news_4693+377250.171836994.3 at reply.tm0.com Tue Aug 14 18:15:54 2001 From: news_4693+377250.171836994.3 at reply.tm0.com (News From Michael Jackson) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:15:54 MDT Subject: The Latest News from the King of Pop! Message-ID: <5.920.5.0.0.15789.997838154@sender07.lodo.exactis.com> This mailing is based on your providing opt-in/subscriber requests to receive this kind of information from one of our associated websites. ------------------------------------ Great news from the King of Pop! Michael Jackson reaches out to his global fan community: Dernières nouvelles du Roi de la Pop! Michael Jackson plus que jamais proche de ses fans du monde entier: Brandheiße News vom King of Pop! Michael Jackson geht interaktiv auf seine Fans zu: ¡Informaciones exclusivas del Rey del Pop! Michael Jackson se aproximara a todos sus aficionados del mundo: http://tm0.com/4693/sbct.cgi?s=171836994&i=377250&d=1645823 ----------------------------- If you no longer wish to receive any of our mailings reply to this message with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5146 bytes Desc: not available URL: From declan at well.com Tue Aug 14 16:17:18 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:17:18 -0400 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <200108142231.f7EMVvC08027@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:32:06PM -0700 References: <20010814173619.A728@cluebot.com> <200108142231.f7EMVvC08027@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010814191718.A2851@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:32:06PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block > certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something > called "The National Research Council" is getting involved in this. The NRC is very prestigious. It is part of the even more prestigious National Academies, which includes the Nataional Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. It's not really the NRC's fault; Congress made them do it in a recently-enacted law. NRC staffers are trying to make the most of it (though quitting is also an option). The real story here is the risks of having a government-funded "science" center tasked with "investigating" political issues like Net porn. Private research institutions don't have the same problem. >. I tried to read the NRC's "Crypto" > report...even went >to the Palo Alto unveiling. B-o-r-i-n-g!) I found it in a used bookstore yesterday on 18th st NW. Maybe I can offload mine there too. -Declan From declan at well.com Tue Aug 14 16:18:02 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:18:02 -0400 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: ; from jbdigriz@dragonsweb.org on Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:50:37PM -0400 References: <200108142053.f7EKrfC07440@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010814191802.B2851@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:50:37PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote: > Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting > projections and interpretations on the part of the reader. But, as you > say, ho hum. Presumably it is to give "scientific backing" to whatever > position Congress wants to take on upcoming issues and legislation, and to > couch various, no doubt conflicting, agendas in scientific > doublespeak. Excuse my cynicism, but that's the way it looks to me. No cynicism necessary. That's what's probably going to happen. -Declan From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Tue Aug 14 17:48:41 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:48:41 -0400 Subject: Friend- OOPS we sent you the wrong LINK Message-ID: <200108150048.UAA06771@www.infogeneratorpro.com> Tue Aug 14, 2001 Dear Friend, Sorry we sent you the wrong link in our email to you! Below is the correct link please review this link and email and reply with necessary info! www.paymeeveryday.com/5.htm You recently wanted to know more about how to earn $10,000 a month from home after visiting our site- www.paymeeveryday.com/5.htm Well Here you go my friend: Congrats! You are about to begin the road to more wealth, prosperity & abundance! And, lets not forget a $300 a month car bonus and free vacation. We will send you our FREE CD-ROM Info-Pack via first class mail so that you can take a look at our great work at home business opportunity and decide if its for you! In-Order to do so please reply to this email with Your: Name Mailing Address Phone # Email Address so we can send you the CDROM today!! Your CD ROM will have all the simple to follow steps to get you started ASAP so that you can begin to get paid EVERY DAY!! This is the most DUPLICATABLE,FUN and Lucrative business opportunity on the PLANET!! Your Success is My Success, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from THIS list: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe _____________ OR _________________________ Remove yourself from ALL LISTS at InfoGeneratorPRO: mailto:hotbizop at infogeneratorpro.com?subject=unsubscribe_all Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From ravage at ssz.com Tue Aug 14 19:35:38 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 21:35:38 -0500 Subject: CNN.com - Study: Net crawling with hidden, snooping bugs - August 14, 2001 Message-ID: <3B79DFFA.B3A2F18F@ssz.com> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/08/14/web.bugs/index.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 14 19:39:13 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 21:39:13 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Taming the Web Message-ID: <3B79E0D1.7671CB9B@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/14/1738234.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From contactus at collectiondirectory.com Tue Aug 14 22:30:10 2001 From: contactus at collectiondirectory.com (CollectionDirectoty.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:30:10 -0700 Subject: Grand Opening! Collection Agency and Attorney Directory Message-ID: <200108150529.f7F5TfU18578@ak47.algebra.com> * NEW SITE ANNOUNCEMENT Our New Website Has Been Launched!!! This is an Exclusive Offer to Join our New Membership Directory! AR Management Consultants has joined forces with the largest International Collection Agency and Attorney Directory to become: CollectionDirectory.com Our new company, Collection Directory.com will be the largest Collection Agency and Attorney Directory in the country. CollectionDirectory.com operates exclusively as a Collection Agency and Attorney Directory focusing on attracting clients for its members. In response to our customer feed back, we have incorporated several new features to our site: * Beautiful, New Hi-tech Site * Heightened Web Exposure and Web Presence on all Major Search Engines * Expanded Search Capabilities-Search by Company name, Attorney Name, or any other keywords * Toolbox- A Free Collection Resource for Clients and Members * Quick, Easy Search by State and City Location * Exclusive Banner Opportunities * Web Design and Web Maintenance * Great Prices * And Much, Much More!!! * * OUR GRAND OPENING SPECIAL * JOIN OUR DIRECTORY TODAY (One Year Price): $89.00 FOR 1ST LOCATION LISTING (SAVE $10.00 WITH THIS OFFER) PRICE ON THE WEB SITE IS $99.00. YOU MUST MENTION THIS OFFER TO RECEIVE THE DISCOUNT **ATTENTION EXISTING CUSTOMERS: ALL CURRENT AR MANAGEMENT MEMBERS LISTED IN collectionsconsultants.com WILL NOW APPEAR IN THE NEW DIRECTORY. This URL will now point to the new site CollectionDirectory.com, giving you twice the exposure than before. Complete the On-line application at: http:// www.collectiondirectory.com/join_directory.htm and email today Submit Application Today with Credit Card Payment Option, Become a Member and Be Listed in the Directory Within 24 hours. With Check Orders, upon receipt of check. You May also Fax the application to (949) 360-9241 or call (949) 831-8755 for Phone orders. * Listing in our directory is fast, easy and hassle free. Just fill out the online application and email or fax to 949 360 9241 including your payment option. * We will list your company within 24 hours of receipt of payment. * Due to our expanded search engine status, we are now reaching a Global Network of Businesses. * Link to your Website or let us create a web page or website for you! (No extra charge for link to existing website. Creating a web page, reasonably priced) * Membership is free upon the purchase of first Listing. * Referrals are 100% Free * Listings are by State, then City. Cost is Per Listing. You can be listed in one area or in every state, any combination. * Banner Advertising: Advertising your Business on our Site- now available at reasonable prices, call for details. * List Today and Start Tracking the Prospects! Call AR Management Consultants today (949) 831- 8755 27068 La Paz Road #243, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-3041 www.collectiondirectory.com This offer expires 08/31/2001 "This email ad is being sent in full compliance with U.S. Senate Bill 1618, Title #3, Section 301." (Which states "A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the recipient by the person who initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic mail address with the word 'remove' in the subject line.") From vivien851 at 21cn.com Tue Aug 14 20:34:41 2001 From: vivien851 at 21cn.com (vivien yu) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:34:41 -0500 Subject: Inqiry from Shanghai Small and Medium (Trade Development) Service Center! Message-ID: <200108150334.f7F3YeU08033@ak47.algebra.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jamesd at echeque.com Tue Aug 14 22:54:41 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:54:41 -0700 Subject: Terrorist [was: and....] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B79AC31.11659.69F70D@localhost> -- On 14 Aug 2001, at 9:40, Trei, Peter wrote: > Another example: Kurds striving to establish Kurdistan are > regarded by the US as either freedom fighters or terrorists, > depending which side of the Turkish/Iraqi border they are on. One of the reasons why Bush ditched the small arms treaty is that these days freedom fighters tend to outnumber "terrorists" -- the tide of revolution is mostly flowing in the direction the US finds quite comfortable. The largest beneficiary of the small arms treaty would have been Sudan, a nation on the UN human rights committee that vociferously condemns human rights violations by the US -- also a country with widespread chattel slavery for inferior races. US government policy is not all that bad compared with the mainstream outside the US. Many governments and newspapers take the position that there are no freedom fighters -- that all use of foce against any government, however bad that government may be, is terrorism. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG hLaArkke4by+tT5CmnMftYReVXllaaccOEB2k0ZV 4CnNu7kgbHY1gDldKRLxE324WBT7MxOTaSDtWSMA0 From measl at mfn.org Tue Aug 14 21:37:58 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:37:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CJ Free In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20010815040838.00c6a924@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > CJ Parker has been released from prison though must > serve months in a half-way house, where else but in > Seattle where it all began and continues. There's a > strange report that he is somewhere out west, vehicle > shot, out of money, and late for showing up at the > half-way house. Perfect. Welcome Home CJ! -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jya at pipeline.com Tue Aug 14 21:08:38 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:08:38 -0400 Subject: CJ Free Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.20010815040838.00c6a924@pop.pipeline.com> CJ Parker has been released from prison though must serve months in a half-way house, where else but in Seattle where it all began and continues. There's a strange report that he is somewhere out west, vehicle shot, out of money, and late for showing up at the half-way house. Perfect. From ishman23 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 00:11:13 2001 From: ishman23 at hotmail.com (Derek Belmontes) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:11:13 Subject: Hello Message-ID: <200108150448.VAA02858@ecotone.toad.com> Dear Friend, AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV : ''Making over half million dollars in about a years time from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time'' THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! I RECOMMEND YOU PRINT THIS LETTER FOR EASIER READING. ================================================================ Before you say ''Bull,''please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost.” DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: '' Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in.'' Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: ================ Order all 5 reports shown on the list below================= For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. === When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00. === Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. === IMPORTANT: DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will lose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the rewards!!! 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! ================================================================ **** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you lose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the Internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ================================================================ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.02% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.02%. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.02% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.02% responded with orders. That's 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2 Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.02% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.02% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e- mails. The 0.02% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5 THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000........ Grand Total=$555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! ================================================================ REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even 1/4 of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ================================================================ Advertising on the net is very, very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. ====================== AVAILABLE REPORTS==================== ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : ================================================================ REPORT # 1 : ''The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net'' Order Report # 1 from: Derek Belmontes 407 E. 11th Bishop, TX 78343 USA _________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 2 : ''The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net'' Order Report # 2 from : Bev Waggener 3937 SW Stonybrook Dr. Topeka, KS 66610 USA _________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 3 : ''The Secret to Multilevel marketing on the net'' Order Report # 3 from: Kevin Dodd 150 Main St. North P.O. Box #74061 Brampton, Ontario LV6 1MO ________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 4 : ''How to become a millionaire utilizing MLM & the Net'' Order Report # 4 from: Kris H. Webber Sankt Hansgade 24, 3th. Copenhagen 2200 Denmark _______________________________________________________________________ _ REPORT # 5 : ''HOW TO SEND 1 MILLION E-MAILS FOR FREE'' Order Report # 5 from: Loren Stone P.O. Bx 6232 Clearfield, UT 84089 USA _______________________________________________________________________ _ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: === If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. === After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!! ================================================================ FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: 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. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do Not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. This is a legitimate program that honestly works like a charm. If we all would open our eyes and see the possibilities, then we would understand that we can help each other get rich, and live life to the fullest. You have nothing to lose, and the world to gain. LET’S HELP EACH OTHER. Do not delay! Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails 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! ====================MORE TESTIMONIALS========================= '' It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanks to the to Internet''. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ================================================================ “I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.......11 months passed then it luckily came again.....I did not delete this one! I made more than$490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks.” Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. ================================================================ ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! =============================================================== If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. ============================THE END========================= This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.1618, http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/S771index.html Further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to this email address with the word "remove" in the subject From ishman23 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 00:11:19 2001 From: ishman23 at hotmail.com (Derek Belmontes) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:11:19 Subject: Hello Message-ID: <200108150521.AAA12231@einstein.ssz.com> Dear Friend, AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV : ''Making over half million dollars in about a years time from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time'' THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! I RECOMMEND YOU PRINT THIS LETTER FOR EASIER READING. ================================================================ Before you say ''Bull,''please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost.” DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: '' Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in.'' Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: ================ Order all 5 reports shown on the list below================= For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. === When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00. === Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. === IMPORTANT: DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will lose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the rewards!!! 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! ================================================================ **** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you lose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the Internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ================================================================ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.02% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.02%. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.02% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.02% responded with orders. That's 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2 Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.02% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.02% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e- mails. The 0.02% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5 THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000........ Grand Total=$555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! ================================================================ REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even 1/4 of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ================================================================ Advertising on the net is very, very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. ====================== AVAILABLE REPORTS==================== ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : ================================================================ REPORT # 1 : ''The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net'' Order Report # 1 from: Derek Belmontes 407 E. 11th Bishop, TX 78343 USA _________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 2 : ''The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net'' Order Report # 2 from : Bev Waggener 3937 SW Stonybrook Dr. Topeka, KS 66610 USA _________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 3 : ''The Secret to Multilevel marketing on the net'' Order Report # 3 from: Kevin Dodd 150 Main St. North P.O. Box #74061 Brampton, Ontario LV6 1MO ________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 4 : ''How to become a millionaire utilizing MLM & the Net'' Order Report # 4 from: Kris H. Webber Sankt Hansgade 24, 3th. Copenhagen 2200 Denmark _______________________________________________________________________ _ REPORT # 5 : ''HOW TO SEND 1 MILLION E-MAILS FOR FREE'' Order Report # 5 from: Loren Stone P.O. Bx 6232 Clearfield, UT 84089 USA _______________________________________________________________________ _ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: === If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. === After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!! ================================================================ FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: 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. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do Not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. This is a legitimate program that honestly works like a charm. If we all would open our eyes and see the possibilities, then we would understand that we can help each other get rich, and live life to the fullest. You have nothing to lose, and the world to gain. LET’S HELP EACH OTHER. Do not delay! Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails 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! ====================MORE TESTIMONIALS========================= '' It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanks to the to Internet''. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ================================================================ “I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.......11 months passed then it luckily came again.....I did not delete this one! I made more than$490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks.” Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. ================================================================ ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! =============================================================== If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. ============================THE END========================= This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.1618, http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/S771index.html Further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to this email address with the word "remove" in the subject From cypherpunks at toad.com Tue Aug 14 22:50:57 2001 From: cypherpunks at toad.com (cypherpunks at toad.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:50:57 -0500 Subject: Your remove request has been successfully processed! Message-ID: <200108150550.AAA13641@hebe.host4u.net> We have processed your remove request successfully. From ishman23 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 02:22:18 2001 From: ishman23 at hotmail.com (Derek Belmontes) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:22:18 Subject: Hello Message-ID: <200108150659.XAA03005@ecotone.toad.com> Dear Friend, AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV : ''Making over half million dollars in about a years time from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time'' THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! I RECOMMEND YOU PRINT THIS LETTER FOR EASIER READING. ================================================================ Before you say ''Bull,''please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost.” DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: '' Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in.'' Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: ================ Order all 5 reports shown on the list below================= For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. === When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00. === Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. === IMPORTANT: DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will lose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the rewards!!! 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! ================================================================ **** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you lose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the Internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ================================================================ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.02% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.02%. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.02% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.02% responded with orders. That's 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2 Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.02% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.02% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e- mails. The 0.02% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5 THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000........ Grand Total=$555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! ================================================================ REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even 1/4 of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ================================================================ Advertising on the net is very, very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. ====================== AVAILABLE REPORTS==================== ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : ================================================================ REPORT # 1 : ''The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net'' Order Report # 1 from: Derek Belmontes 407 E. 11th Bishop, TX 78343 USA _________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 2 : ''The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net'' Order Report # 2 from : Bev Waggener 3937 SW Stonybrook Dr. Topeka, KS 66610 USA _________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 3 : ''The Secret to Multilevel marketing on the net'' Order Report # 3 from: Kevin Dodd 150 Main St. North P.O. Box #74061 Brampton, Ontario LV6 1MO ________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 4 : ''How to become a millionaire utilizing MLM & the Net'' Order Report # 4 from: Kris H. Webber Sankt Hansgade 24, 3th. Copenhagen 2200 Denmark _______________________________________________________________________ _ REPORT # 5 : ''HOW TO SEND 1 MILLION E-MAILS FOR FREE'' Order Report # 5 from: Loren Stone P.O. Bx 6232 Clearfield, UT 84089 USA _______________________________________________________________________ _ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: === If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. === After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!! ================================================================ FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: 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. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do Not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. This is a legitimate program that honestly works like a charm. If we all would open our eyes and see the possibilities, then we would understand that we can help each other get rich, and live life to the fullest. You have nothing to lose, and the world to gain. LET’S HELP EACH OTHER. Do not delay! Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails 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! ====================MORE TESTIMONIALS========================= '' It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanks to the to Internet''. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ================================================================ “I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.......11 months passed then it luckily came again.....I did not delete this one! I made more than$490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks.” Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. ================================================================ ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! =============================================================== If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. ============================THE END========================= This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.1618, http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/S771index.html Further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to this email address with the word "remove" in the subject From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Aug 15 02:24:30 2001 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:24:30 -0700 Subject: Only $89.95 Per Month Message-ID: <200108150924.f7F9OUl10375@s216-232-14-166.bc.hsia.telus.net> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by () on Wednesday, August 15, 2001 at 02:24:30 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- message: Unlimited Domestic Calling from your residential or small business phone for only $89.95 per month http://www.1xin.net/ch3/phone/ To be removed email permanentremoval at excite.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From popkin at nym.alias.net Tue Aug 14 22:22:34 2001 From: popkin at nym.alias.net (D.Popkin) Date: 15 Aug 2001 05:22:34 -0000 Subject: Organized crime groups going online, report says -- beware! References: <20010814113549.A24058@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010815052234.13725.qmail@nym.alias.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 525 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.key at etransmail2.com Wed Aug 15 08:31:46 2001 From: stephanie.key at etransmail2.com (Stephanie Key) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 08:31:46 -0700 Subject: Product Give Away - Take 5 ! Message-ID: <200108151517.f7FFHpU30643@ak47.algebra.com> If you cannot view this message, please visit http://www.globalzon2k.com/news_vercheck1.htm G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. is sending this email to its subscribed users. You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com FREE Products shipped in Full Retail Packaging Pick up to 5 of each! Fortune. (149.99 value) DataScan (149.99 value) eXpressForms 2000 (129.99 value) TransForm Personal (59.99 value) VersaClips (19.99 value) ? Fortune: Relationship manager and addressbook ? DataScan: Business card and telephone directory scanning software ? ExpressForms 2000: Forms, Invitation and Greeting Card generator to publish on the Internet ? TransForm Personal: Scan and convert your paper forms into editable electronic forms in seconds. ? VersaClips: Accentuate your checks, website and documents with handcrafted background images. Click on any of the graphics above to add your FREE products! About VersaCheck 2001 VersaCheck enables businesses and individuals to create their own custom checks. All it takes is a desktop printer, blank paper and VersaCheck software! The checks look professional and are fully bankable. VersaCheck is available at most computer retail stores and online. It works with most accounting and personal finance software such as Quicken, Money, QuickBooks, Peachtree and many more. Four popular versions to choose from: VersaCheck 2001 Personal Home & Business Professional Premium VersaCheck Comes with High Quality Blank Security Check Stock Available Colors: Tan, Burgundy, Green and Blue Sample Check Please call 800-303-2620 for questions or assistance regarding this offer. Thank you very much. Best regards, Stephanie Key Customer Relationship Executive 800-303-2620 To change your communication preferences Click Here or simply reply to this Email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. Copyright © Globalzon, Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 11472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Aug 15 08:53:29 2001 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:53:29 -0400 Subject: RESIDUAL Message-ID: <200108151553.LAA32680@ns.medyabim.net> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by () on Wednesday, August 15, 2001 at 11:53:29 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- message: Residual INCOME http://www.geocities.com/quickcashh999/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From georgemw at speakeasy.net Wed Aug 15 11:59:22 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:59:22 -0700 Subject: food fo thought In-Reply-To: <20010814173409.D55074@neutraldomain.org> Message-ID: <3B7A641A.18072.5DC0953@localhost> On 14 Aug 2001, at 17:34, Gabriel Rocha wrote: > Taming the Web > By Charles C. Mann September 2001 > > "Information wants to be free." "The Internet can't be controlled." > We've heard it so often that we sometimes take for granted that it's > true. But THE INTERNET CAN BE CONTROLLED, and those who argue otherwise > are hastening the day when it will be controlled too much, by the wrong > people, and for the wrong reasons. > I think we've all seen this type of argument before. Interestingly enough, the article offers no support whatsoever for any part of this other than the "the internet can be controlled" part. What dire consequences will come from circumventing bad laws is never addressed in this type of article, at least not in any that I've read. And with good reason: congress has already conclusively demenostrated that they do not have the wisdom and knowledge to make good laws for cyberspace, no way, no how. So let's just take a look at the arguments for the assertion that "the internet can be controlled". The form argument seems to be listing "myths" followed by "refutation by anecdote". I find this a particularly unpersuasive form of argument. I'll go into a little more dtail, probably more than is actually merited. "Myth #1: The internet is too international to be controlled". Refuting anecdote: Swapnet is allegedly based in St. Kitts and Nevis, non-signatories to the WIPO. However, because of limited bandwidth going to the carribean island, their big servers are actually situated in Virginia. I'm unimpressed. as the article points out, access to the islands is being upgraded, and besides, even a relatively slow connection to an uncensorable site can be extremely useful. For example, you could have your legally secure slow connection have pointers to the location of files rather than the files themselves. "Myth #2: The Net is too Interconnected to Control" Refuting Anectdote: Gnutella doesn't scale well, with Bearshare the "peers" aren't really equal, and Freenet is unsearchable. The "point" here is that the majority of lusers still have dialup connections, and are in no position to offer useful services, even if they were willing to. First off, the number of people with persistent, higher speed connections is rapidly increasing and second, this ain't a democracy. It may be true that you would "only" have to shut down 5-10% or so of Bearshare's clients to make the remaining network virtually useless, but I think that's still an enormous number of machines. "Myth #3: The net is too filled with Hackers to control" Refuting Assertion: You can build controls into the hardware, and that can't be hacked. Well, maybe, but that requires people to go out and buy their own straightjackets. Also, it's importnat to remember that information isn't hardware, it's bits. It just takes one person to post a "cracked" file somewhere, and then it doesn't matter whether the attempts to restrict copying are implemented in hardware or software, because the file is no longer recognized as being copy protected. I could rant on, but all this is really only addressing what I consider to be the minor assertion, which is that "you'e going to lose sooner or later, so you might as well give up." The more important assertiion (IMO) is that "the sooner you give up, the better it'll go for you". I haven't seen any support at all offered for this position, and I think the only appropriate reply to it is, "Bullshit". George > -- > "It's not brave, if you're not scared." From jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org Wed Aug 15 09:22:49 2001 From: jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org (James B. DiGriz) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <200108150021.f7F0LrC08473@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > Which is what the NRC did with the crypto issue. They sensed which way > the wind was blowing (anti-Clipper, by 80% plus if I remember the > opinion polls correctly) and came out with a report which massaged the > inputs in such a way as to come out against key escrow. > > If the opinion polls, weighted appropriately by inputs from media > conglomerates, conclude that regulation of access to speech is > advisable, then the NRC will issue a suitably-weighty report outlining > the issues and presenting Congress with options for regulating speech > and access to speech. > > Or by inputs from majority stockholders of filtering companies. Oh wait, you said that. jbdigriz p.s. Since there are one or two attractive women out there I know who might concievably chance upon my remarks yesterday, I want to hasten to assure everyone that they were pure hyperbole, to make an, um, abstract philosophical point. Yeah, that's it. I'd never dream of actually looking at that gross, disgusting stuff. Why, it's demeaning to women. Those hussies have nothing on a real woman, anyway. :-) From walter at walterbresert.com Wed Aug 15 10:49:10 2001 From: walter at walterbresert.com (Walter Bressert) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:49:10 -0500 Subject: From Walter Bressert: New Trading Program. Message-ID: <200108151749.KAA06963@toad.com> Learn how to enter a market with a $200 POINT RISK, or lower, with Walter's new 4-STEP TRADING MASTERY PROGRAM. THEORY TO ACTUAL TRADING This trading package not only gives you the tools to trade, but also real-time trading with Walter during live, interactive trading sessions, providing you with the opportunity to take what you have learned from theory to actual hands-on application with Walter as your trading coach. Whether you are new to cycle trading, or a previous customer that wants to remain current on Walter_s trading techniques, this is an unsurpassed opportunity to benefit from Walter_s latest cycle trading techniques that will improve your timing and lower your risk exposure. Find out if you can benefit, go to _ http://www.walterbressert.com/1234.htm NOTE: This is a time-sensitive special offer that includes over $1200 in DISCOUNTS & BONUSES that EXPIRES ON 8/22/01. Additional discounts may apply to previous customers. Regards, Teresa Bressert WALTER BRESSERT, INC. Voice: 312.893.0801 Mailto:teresa at walterbressert.com YOU CAN BUY BOTTOMS & SELL TOPS! Important Disclaimer http://www.walterbressert.com/disclaimer There is a loss in trading futures Removal Instructions: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, click on the email link below. Be sure to provide your full name and email address as we have it on file. Mailto:Remove at walterbressert.com From mmotyka at lsil.com Wed Aug 15 13:19:45 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:19:45 -0700 Subject: food fo thought Message-ID: <3B7AD961.A1D72C5D@lsil.com> georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote : >On 14 Aug 2001, at 17:34, Gabriel Rocha wrote: >> Taming the Web >> By Charles C. Mann September 2001 >> >> "Information wants to be free." "The Internet can't be controlled." >> We've heard it so often that we sometimes take for granted that it's >> true. But THE INTERNET CAN BE CONTROLLED, and those who argue otherwise >> are hastening the day when it will be controlled too much, by the wrong >> people, and for the wrong reasons. >> >I think we've all seen this type of argument before. >Interestingly enough, the article offers no support whatsoever for >any part of this other than the "the internet can be controlled" part. >What dire consequences will come from circumventing bad laws >is never addressed in this type of article, at least not in >any that I've read. And with good reason: congress has already >conclusively demenostrated that they do not have the wisdom and >knowledge to make good laws for cyberspace, no way, no how. > >So let's just take a look at the arguments for the assertion that >"the internet can be controlled". > >The form argument >seems to be listing "myths" followed by "refutation by anecdote". I >find this a particularly unpersuasive form of argument. I'll go into a >little more dtail, probably more than is actually merited. > >"Myth #1: The internet is too international to be controlled". >Refuting anecdote: Swapnet is allegedly based in St. Kitts and >Nevis, non-signatories to the WIPO. However, because of limited >bandwidth going to the carribean island, their big servers are >actually situated in Virginia. > >I'm unimpressed. as the article points out, access to the islands is >being upgraded, and besides, even a relatively slow connection to >an uncensorable site can be extremely useful. For example, you >could have your legally secure slow connection have pointers >to the location of files rather than the files themselves. > >"Myth #2: The Net is too Interconnected to Control" >Refuting Anectdote: Gnutella doesn't scale well, with Bearshare >the "peers" aren't really equal, and Freenet is unsearchable. > >The "point" here is that the majority of lusers still have dialup >connections, and are in no position to offer useful services, >even if they were willing to. > >First off, the number of people with persistent, higher speed >connections is rapidly increasing and second, this ain't a >democracy. It may be true that you would "only" have to shut >down 5-10% or so of Bearshare's clients to make the remaining >network virtually useless, but I think that's still an enormous >number of machines. > >"Myth #3: The net is too filled with Hackers to control" >Refuting Assertion: You can build controls into the hardware, >and that can't be hacked. > >Well, maybe, but that requires people to go out and buy >their own straightjackets. > >Also, it's importnat to remember that information isn't hardware, >it's bits. It just takes one person to post a "cracked" file >somewhere, >and then it doesn't matter whether the attempts to restrict >copying are implemented in hardware or software, because the >file is no longer recognized as being copy protected. > >I could rant on, but all this is really only addressing what I >consider to be the minor assertion, which is that "you'e going >to lose sooner or later, so you might as well give up." > >The more important assertiion (IMO) is that "the sooner you give >up, the better it'll go for you". I haven't seen any support at all >offered for this position, and I think the only appropriate reply >to it is, "Bullshit". > >George > One mistake the author makes is that he seems to think that there are only anarchist hackers out there who should forget the hacking thing and become lobbyists. There are already people doing that work who are probably better at it than 99/100 hackers. There may be a need for more people and resources to lobby for rational laws but the space is not empty. Another mistake is in lumping the private uses of the net in with the commercial. I doubt that the personal uses can ever be fully subjugated to commercial needs. However, I think it's pretty clear that a great deal more could be controlled and punished than is currently. It'll be like the drug war : the first 2% or so costs USD25B to get off the streets. What will the last 2% cost? USD25B? Not likely. Draw the $ vs. %control curve. The entire US GNP is not enough. Is the article Total Bullshit? No, but I'd put on my Wellies. Mike Anyone have any strong opinions on laptops as far as reliability and Linux-friendliness? I like HP and Toshiba at this point. From borothene at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 14:57:37 2001 From: borothene at hotmail.com (Rich) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:57:37 Subject: Open your e-mail and get 5 to 25 cents each to do so Message-ID: <200108151858.f7FIwZU19252@ak47.algebra.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 432 bytes Desc: not available URL: From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 15 12:25:19 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "For the children": DMV high-tech database and ID card for kids Message-ID: How's this for a telling quote: "I think it ought to be mandatory," Lopez said. "I just think it ought to go nationally. . . . That database could be used for many things." D.C. Plans ID Card for Students Aim of DMV Database Is Missing Children The ID cards, issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, could be used to track everything from children's welfare benefits to attendance at school functions. (D.C. Motor Vehicle Administration) By Robert O'Harrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 15, 2001; Page A01 District officials plan to begin taking digital photographs and fingerprints of schoolchildren this fall as part of a high-tech identification initiative designed to improve the search for missing children. Under a plan initiated by the administration of Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), the information about the children would be collected at schools using laptop computers. It would be fed into a centralized computer system, and the children then would receive ID cards containing bar codes that can be scanned by authorities, officials said. Children from 2 to 14 initially would be eligible for the new IDs, and parents would have to give their approval before their children can participate. The IDs are to cost $5, although the city may subsidize the fee for low-income residents. The IDs would need to be renewed every two years. Several officials said they hope the program could be expanded to improve social services by closely tracking youths' involvement in schools and government benefit programs. Although local law enforcement agencies and private organizations have long snapped photos and taken fingerprints for parents to use in the event of a child's disappearance, the District's initiative is fundamentally different because the government is to maintain the information. "We want to take advantage of the latest digital technology to implement a process that will enable us to protect and assist the parents and children of the District of Columbia," Sherryl Hobbs Newman, director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, who is overseeing the plan, said in an interview. "We should use the technology we're developing to get that information to whomever needs it." It is not clear how much of a problem missing children are in the District. The mayor's office said police list 86 open cases of juveniles reported missing in the 17 months from January 2000 to the end of May. Nationally, more than 5,000 children are listed as missing at any one time, said a spokesman for a group that tracks the issue. Those numbers include runaways and children taken by estranged parents. Businesses, governments and military agencies everywhere are linking computers, digital photographs and biometric identifiers -- such as fingerprints and facial scans -- to improve security and better authenticate the identities of individuals. Many law enforcement agencies use such technology to electronically book prisoners. But the coupling of technology and biometric information has drawn intense criticism from privacy advocates. And some activists and officials expressed concern about the District's plan, saying the identifying information could be misused by authorities and hacked by outsiders. "I find it kind of scary," said Mary M. Levy, analyst and counsel for Parents United for the D.C. Public Schools, an advocacy group. She said many parentsmight not want police using the data for investigations. D.C. Council member Kevin P. Chavous (D-Ward 7), chairman of the council's Education Committee, said he shares Levy's concerns, but he supports the program. "Generally, I think it's a good idea," he said. "I am a little concerned about the Big Brother aspect." Council member Phil Mendelson (D), who is on the Education Committee, said he was unaware of the plan but is glad it is voluntary. He said the government nevertheless must act slowly because of the privacy issues involved. "We need to be very careful about . . . obtaining such detailed information," he said. At the request of the mayor, council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D) introduced a resolution July 6 that would amend local regulations to allow for the child ID cards. There was no debate at the time, and no hearings have been scheduled. The resolution takes effect 45 working days after its introduction, unless the council votes against it, officials said. Newman said she is sensitive to privacy concerns. Although the system would greatly ease the collection of information about individual children, she said, it would also be configured to limit how much information officials could get. "I think people will eventually see the benefits," she said. "New things tend to scare people." The District's initiative would be the most sophisticated in the nation to focus primarily on children, according to officials at Polaroid ID Systems, who have worked with the DMV to create the program. The only similar program is in West Virginia, which began offering child IDs two years ago. The District plan differs from it in one key respect: District DMV officials intend to go into the schools with portable equipment to collect children's information. Only about 5,000 children have been photographed or fingerprinted in West Virginia, in part because officials there require parents to bring their children to motor vehicle offices, according to Mary Jane Lopez, a spokeswoman for the DMV there. District motor vehicle officials described the program as a chance to use their year-old digital driver-licensing system to help authorities find missing children by providing instant access, including over the Internet, to recent photos and other identifying details. Officials have also begun planning ways to expand the program to improve the delivery of social services for eligible children, "from day one of their lives," said to Sandra Villeneuve, a regional account manager at Polaroid ID Systems who has attended planning meetings in the mayor's office. Among other things, school officials might use the bar code on students' ID cards to monitor attendance in school and at events. Social services officials might use the card to track a child's benefits, officials said. Newman said that if the program unfolds as planned, the use of an ID card may become obligatory for some young people who receive social services and already provide much of the information to city officials. "What we're doing is actually making it more convenient . . . condensing it in one card," she said. Some parents expressed concern about how the DMV would control access to the system and limit uses of the data. Iris Toyer, the mother of a 9-year- old at Stanton Elementary School, said: "I find it invasive. I do not know who will have access to it. I do not know how it will be used, regardless of what they say." Privacy specialists also criticized the plan, saying the city's apparent aims for the program are too open-ended to justify the risks of gathering so much information about children in one place. "There are always benefits. There are also risks that tend to be understated," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Now you're talking about kids." An official from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childen also questioned the wisdom of the District's plan. Spokesman David Shapiro said there's no question that investigators searching for missing children need access to a current photo as quickly as possible. But, Shapiro said, authorities can usually get the information they need from parents. Oftentimes that includes a child's fingerprints. During the last decade, through community- and business-sponsored programs, the center has helped create 12 million children's "passports" containing photographs and information about individual children. Police agencies and other groups have done the same thing. "It's the national center's view that only parents should maintain this information," Shapiro said, adding that a major concern is that outsiders or officials might misuse information collected in a database. "There's always that potential. . . . Security is a major issue." As in the District, West Virginia officials envision a major expansion of the program in the coming years. Lopez said officials there are considering using the ID cards to improve security and track attendance at schools. They may also want to create IDs for children in foster care programs to ensure they get proper services, she said. "I think it ought to be mandatory," Lopez said. "I just think it ought to go nationally. . . . That database could be used for many things." Staff writer Sewell Chan contributed to this report. From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 15 15:58:15 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:58:15 -0700 Subject: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jimbo sniveled: > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > the act. Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not require outlawing the speech. > The images should be taken as evidence of the > act and then destroyed. They should not in > and of themselves be left in circulation to > promote further acts. Actually, it is just as reasonable to think that the MORE kiddy porn there is out there, the LESS acting out there will be (think cathartic release). Also, by letting what already exists circulate, REDUCES the incentive to produce more and, thus, abusing more kids. > And no, this does not violate the 1st in > spirit or letter. Of course it does. What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." doesn't "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" understand? :'D > There is no mention of 'privacy' in the > Constitution. "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" should have another look at the Ninth. > Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference. > > The point being, sex between consenting > adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex between > consenting adults. No, but speech about sex between consenting adults is porn. Look it up, "pornography" literally means, "writings about prostitutes," but has been extended to encompass all writings (and other speech) about sexual conduct. By the way, "porn" is not illegal, per se. It's "obscenity" that's the legal bugaboo. Of course, "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" INAL (and never could be). S a n d y From georgemw at speakeasy.net Wed Aug 15 16:07:02 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:07:02 -0700 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: References: <200108142231.f7EMVvC08027@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B7A9E26.13867.6BEC6E6@localhost> On 16 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > even if the meaning is implied. > I really don't think so. It's possible some people were more concerned with political speech in the sense that the idea that Congress might try to ban "dirty books" wouldn't have ocurred to them in the first place, whereas the idea that it might try to ban "subversive" or "heretical" speech seemed a more likely threat, but the idea that political speech is somehow more deserving of protection (as opposed to more in need) would have been as alien to the founding fathers as it is to me. I'll take that a step further; the only people who will assert that political speech is somehow more important than any other kind are people who have spent too much of their lives heavily involved in politics. I think the same concept is true for the BoR in general. The 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable serach and seizure isn't there to give criiminals (political or otherwise) a sporting chance, it's that your life is essentially your own, and if society wants to invade your home they'd better have a damn good reason. The reason there isn't an amendment in the BoR protecting your right to eat, drink, and smoke what you choose is that the glutinous pothead drunkards who wrote the Constitution never conceived of such abusive laws in the first place, which in turn is because the bush-league tyrant George III never even considered trying to inflict such laws on the populace. > >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do > >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the > >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may > >be banned.) > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? > Well, that's just something the Supremes made up, but, to be fair, the idea that the 14th extends the protection of most but not quite all of the BoR from Congress to the states is more or less something the Supremes made up also. > >"For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites > >than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by > >requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. > > The question is, are there enough sensible people around to stop precisely > that from happening? > How many does it take? I suspect the vast majority don't care much one way or the other. They don't read, they don't care what or if other people read, hell, I haven't even read Lolita myself, saw the Kubrik film though. > >Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my > >words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a > >Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether > >I included material "offensive" to Creationists. > > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people > most vocal about banning online speech. > Self-label if you choose. But don't be too surprised when others choose otherwise. More to the point, don't be too surprised when others self label and rate their content in a way radically different to the way you would. George > Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 > student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 15 16:24:54 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:24:54 -0700 Subject: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jimbo sputtered: > > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > > > the act. > > > > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the > act does not > > require outlawing the speech. > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > without commiting the act. A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. > If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno'... As I said (and Jimbo ignored), porn is not illegal, per se, only obscenity. Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference, but that's the way the laws work. S a n d y From bear at sonic.net Wed Aug 15 16:35:32 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as >> equal to other speech, > >But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so >offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to >create the speech. You mean acts which consenting adults perform voluntarily? In most off-camera cases, acts which signify love and trust with a life partner? Acts on some of which the continuation of the species depends? The idea that such acts are somehow "wrong" or "criminal" is ridiculous. And you are asking us to believe that the images or descriptions of such acts are heinous because they inherit wrongness or criminality from the acts themselves? Go soak your head. Bear (Who happens to enjoy sex) From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 15 16:36:12 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:36:12 -0700 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108152336.f7FNamC13182@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 02:09 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> However, in a free society with protections similar to the First >> Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what >> government >> may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows >> government to regulate speech or music or any other such form of >> expression based on its offensiveness to some. Nothing. > > Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated > as > equal to other speech, but considering the strength of the opposite view > nowadays, I would not be surprised if the First was gutted in this > regard. > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have > some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political > speech, > even if the meaning is implied. Many of us don't believe this common belief today, that the First is mainly about political speech, is consistent with the intent of the Framers. The Framers were well aware that when the King can decide who can speak, and where, and in front of which others, then the King has more power than any government should ever have. This would have applied to whether Ben Franklin coudl publish his electricity research, Patrick Henry his cure for baldness, or Thomas Jefferson his advertisements for his fine tobacco products. The notion that the King's men get to control what is said about electricity research (pace recent cases in crypto, cloning, etc.) or what is said about baldness cures (pace FDA, advertising laws, etc.), or what is said about fine tobacco products (not in front of children, not on television or radio, and not in increasing numbers of places--and some of these are the result of "voluntary" (in the Orwellian sense) deals the tobacco companies agreed to. The First was designed to stop this kind of intrusion into personal, political, religious, and commercial speech. >> (The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do >> with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but >> the >> "online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said >> may >> be banned.) > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? More gnawing away at the First, of course. Given the notion that a local community may ban certain items because they violate the "community standards" of the community, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that a local community could also ban Mormonism, or Catholicism, or any religious practice they deemed to be violative of their community standards. Ditto for community standards for gun ownership (cf. New York, Washington, California, etc.). Ditto for community standards for numerous other rights. A law student recently reminded me that the "incorporation doctrine," coupled I presume with the language of the 14th Amendment (esp. the "equal protection" clause), says that the states (and even smaller divisions of political units, e.g., cities and counties) are BOUND to obey the U.S. Constitution. It took a long while for this to be hammered home with landmark cases, such as ones dealing with New York's version of press censorship. (The Second is in a peculiar situation, for reasons I don't have time to write about now.) I see no reason under this reading why Idaho, for example, would be able to ban "Playboy." Their "community standards" might be offended by "Playboy," but then this is just as good a reason to ban Jews. What's the difference? Either the U.S. Constitution applies in Idaho and everywhere else, or it doesn't. We talk a lot here about the Constitution. Strange for two reasons: first, this is an international list, second, many of us are not exactly supporters of government in general. However, practically speaking, history is showing us that only a "robust kernel," to use some computer science notions, can stop the predations of the state. Or slow them down. In the legal arena, that is. If technology or custom push into new regimes, the law may be bypassed or forced to change. Countries without a hammered-out series of ironclad (to mix some metaphors) constitutional prohibitions on what government can do find themselves with laws like Britain's "R.I.P." laws, or bans on crypto like in South Africa ("No RSA in RSA!"), Russia, France, etc. Without the extremely strong language of "Congress shall make no law....," the U.S. would have had zillions of laws passed by do-gooders and well-meaning Congresscritters. (We have it with commercial speech, because the courts went off the track and bought your theory that the First is about "political" speech, not "commercial" speech. That, and overbroad interpretations of the Commerce Clause. I've written too much about this issue already.) Enough for now. One last item: >> Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my >> words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a >> Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether >> I included material "offensive" to Creationists. > > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even > afford > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of > people > most vocal about banning online speech. Fuck that noise. None of the proposals for "voluntary self-labelling" are actually about any kind of voluntarism except in the Orwellian meaning of the term. And self-labelling is a foolish idea. No one is "tricked" into learning that "Tropic of Cancer" has sexual content....Miller did not need to plaster a warning label across his novel's cover. As we discussed several years ago when the CDA was being debated, there are profound problems with self-labelling. Some people will self-label "incorrectly" for various reasons. Much debated several years ago. My self-rating .sig follows: V-CHIP CONTENT WARNING: THIS POST IS RATED: R, V, NPC, RI, S, I13. [For processing by the required-by-1998 V-chips, those reading this post from an archive must set their V-chip to "42-0666." I will not be held responsible for posts incorrectly filtered-out by a V-chip that has been by-passed, hot-chipped, or incorrectly programmed.] ***WARNING!*** It has become necessary to warn potential readers of my messages before they proceed further. This warning may not fully protect me against criminal or civil proceedings, but it may be treated as a positive attempt to obey the various and increasing numbers of laws. * Under the ***TELECOM ACT OF 1996***, minor CHILDREN (under the age of 18) may not read or handle this message under any circumstances. If you are under 18, delete this message NOW. Also, if you are developmentally disabled, irony-impaired, emotionally traumatized, schizophrenic, suffering PMS, affected by Humor Deprivation Syndrom (HDS), or under the care of a doctor, then the TELECOM ACT OF 1996 may apply to you as well, even if you are 18. If you fall into one of these categories and are not considered competent to judge for yourself what you are reading, DELETE this message NOW. * Under the UTAH PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 1996, those under the age of 21 may not read this post. All residents of Utah, and Mormons elsewhere, must install the M-Chip. * Under the PROTECTION OF THE REICH laws, residents of Germany may not read this post. * Under the MERCIFUL SHIELD OF ALLAH (Praise be to Him!) holy interpretations of the Koran of the following countries (but not limited to this list) you may not read this post if you are a FEMALE OF ANY AGE: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority. Non-female persons may also be barred from reading this post, depending on the settings of your I-Chip. * Under the proposed CHINESE INTERNET laws, covering The People's Republic of China, Formosa, Hong Kong, Macao, Malaysia, and parts of several surrrounding territories, the rules are so nebulous and unspecified that I cannot say whether you are allowed to read this. Thus, you must SUBMIT any post you wish to read to your local authorities for further filtering. * In Singapore, merely be RECEIVING this post you have violated the will of Lee Kwan Yu. Report to your local police office to receive your caning. * Finally, if you are barrred from contact with the Internet, or protected by court order from being disturbed by thoughts which may disturb you, or covered by protective orders, it is up to you to adjust the settings of your V-Chip to ensure that my post does not reach you. *** THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN COMPLYING WITH THESE LAWS *** From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 14:46:15 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:46:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as > equal to other speech, But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to create the speech. No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'. While the 'speech' part is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to resolve the issues relating to the acts) there is still the component of the acts against minors that needs to be dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bear at sonic.net Wed Aug 15 16:53:13 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Free kiddie porn would save a lot of kids from being abused. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act. To address one and >ignore the other is simply not reasonable. The images should be taken as >evidence of the act and then destroyed. They should not in and of >themselves be left in circulation to promote further acts. Your assumption here is that leaving them in circulation will promote further acts against children. I do not believe that this is the case. In fact, if anything promotes further acts against children, it is taking such images *out* of circulation. If the desire to get the 'speech' (ie, photos) is what drives the abuse of children, do we not owe it to those children to minimize the motive to harm them? And if the motive is financial, how better to minimize it than to flood the market with public-domain computer- generated kiddie porn? If you saturate the market, then there is no more financial motive to abuse kids. It's plain old supply and demand, right? It's totally obvious to anyone whose motive is actually protecting kids rather than suppressing speech. Which would explain why the american legal system has been missing it so consistently; protecting kids, whatever the rhetoric they use, is not what they want to do. Bear From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 15 16:55:09 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:55:09 -0700 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108152334.TAA20261@oobleck.mit.edu> Message-ID: <200108152354.f7FNspC13329@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 04:34 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > [cypherpunky cryptobabble libertopians should take note!] > > Hit and run insults to our list, oh my! I have decremented his reputation counter by the standard amount, and have added his name to the Silicon Valley "don't hire this guy" data base. So long as he stays on the East Coast, shouldn't be a problem for him. --Tim May From sjsobol at NorthShoreTechnologies.net Wed Aug 15 14:06:48 2001 From: sjsobol at NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:06:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Affects of the balkanization of mail blacklisting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: alright, this is the last thing I'm going to say on this particular point... (heh, how many times have we heard *that* from me...) On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 measl at mfn.org wrote: > There are plenty, but most of us are too goddamn lazy to do it ourselves, > and ask for an ORBS or MAPS like service to do it for us. We have NEVER > had a spam problem (we've been here since 1994) going out - not a single > incident (not that we probably won't haqve one *someday*, but still, it's > a hell of a good track record). OK, fine. For the purposes of this argument I'll take that statement at face value, although I'd be curious where you work. If you're an IT type at a big corporation whose primary line of business isn't Internet access, then your statement means nothing as outgoing spam is much easier to control when you're not an ISP/IAP/NSP/*SP. > The SPAM problem goes up and down to be sure, but you know what? PROCMAIL > is your friend. All you need to look for are the basics (ADV, Make Money, > etc) and you can instatly filter 90 percent of this trash into the > bitbucket. This sounds like "Just Hit Delete". Most of us who dislike spam would prefer to remove the problems, not just the symptoms. > At work (not mfn.org), I get several orders of magnitude more mail > (usually obnoxious at that) from the "gentle anti-spammers" than the poor > "victims" get themselves! And why is it that you're getting all this mail? Most anti-spammers I know of just don't go looking for targets to shoot at, they complain to the sources of spam that they have *actually received.* > should not be done. I don't think that SPAM is going to cause any major > social upheavals. I also disagree that all people want to be spared from > SPAM, and with thaqt in mind, I believe everyone should defend themselves > to the best of their interest, and leave the next guy alone: he or she > probably has *way* more important things to worry about. I think you have an agenda. I think further that you are not being completely honest with us about why you have a bone to pick with MAPS. The people who read this mailing list aren't naive. You won't find John Q. AOL-Member reading your posts. I have plenty of experience working on the net, and I actually consider myself one of the least experienced people who regularly posts here... I look at reading many of the NANOG threads as a learning experience, and contribute what little I have to contribute. Anyhow, you'll find that most of the people here are pretty good at critical thinking, which is a necessity in the line of business in which we work. And I am sure that others will be happy to pick apart your arguments. For my own edification... all I am asking is that you come clean and tell us the ENTIRE story. -- JustThe.net LLC - Steve "Web Dude" Sobol, CTO - sjsobol at JustThe.net Donate a portion of your monthly ISP bill to your favorite charity or non-profit organization! E-mail me for details. From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 15:18:40 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:18:40 -0500 Subject: Mob Software Message-ID: <3B7AF540.29C495F4@ssz.com> http://www.dreamsongs.com/MobSoftware.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 15:42:44 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:42:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as > >> equal to other speech, > > > >But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so > >offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to > >create the speech. > > So legislate the ACTS, not the speech. But they are auto-catalytic. You draw a false distinction that the 'act' and the 'picture' are somehow disconnected. They are not. Note that I am not in any way addressing text or artificialy created images, or images created by consenting adults. Only those which involve a minor. It is the involvement of a minor which is the deciding line, why? Because they don't have the life skills/experience/maturity/whatever to make the informed decision themselves. The act preceedes the speech and as a consequence looses its protection. It's very like an admission of guilt. The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act. To address one and ignore the other is simply not reasonable. The images should be taken as evidence of the act and then destroyed. They should not in and of themselves be left in circulation to promote further acts. And no, this does not violate the 1st in spirit or letter. > >No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want > >as long as it contains 'speech'. > > But one *is* guaranteed a whole bunch of privacy rights and No, one is not. There is no mention of 'privacy' in the Constitution. It does talk about 'personal' (and yes, I am aware of the legalistic quibbling this injects into the discussion - I agree with your equating 'personal' and 'private' - IANAL.) > self-determination. And what about the self-determination of the children? How does allowing porn protect that? It doesn't. > If one *wants*, for one reason or another, to engage in > the production of porn, who are you to say it cannot be done? The stuff that > results is then just speech. Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference. The point being, sex between consenting adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex between consenting adults. 'porn' falls into two categories. Only one of which makes any sense. That is regarding minors. The other is a religous perspective based on some of the most twisted Judeo-Christian spin-doctoring around and involves sex other than between a man and wife in the missionary position in the dark with their clothes on. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 16:13:17 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:13:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Jimbo sniveled: > > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > > the act. > > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not > require outlawing the speech. No they are not. You can't make the picture without commiting the act. If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno', it'd be a fantasy picture or one taken of consenting adults that would fall fully under 'speech' protection. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 16:13:48 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:13:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <3B7A9E26.13867.6BEC6E6@localhost> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > On 16 Aug 2001, at 0:09, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > > > > And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which > > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > > even if the meaning is implied. > > > > I really don't think so. It's possible some people were more > concerned with political speech in the sense that the idea > that Congress might try to ban "dirty books" wouldn't have > ocurred to them in the first place, whereas the idea that > it might try to ban "subversive" or "heretical" speech seemed > a more likely threat, but the idea that political speech is > somehow more deserving of protection (as opposed to more > in need) would have been as alien to the founding fathers as it > is to me. > > I'll take that a step further; the only people who will assert that > political speech is somehow more important than any other kind > are people who have spent too much of their lives heavily involved > in politics. > > I think the same concept is true for the BoR in general. The 4th > amendment prohibition against unreasonable serach and seizure > isn't there to give criiminals (political or otherwise) a sporting > chance, it's that your life is essentially your own, and if society > wants to invade your home they'd better have a damn good reason. > > The reason there isn't an amendment in the BoR protecting your > right to eat, drink, and smoke what you choose is that the > glutinous pothead drunkards who wrote the Constitution never > conceived of such abusive laws in the first place, which in turn > is because the bush-league tyrant George III never even considered > trying to inflict such laws on the populace. > > > >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do > > >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the > > >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may > > >be banned.) > > > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? > > > > Well, that's just something the Supremes made up, but, > to be fair, the idea that the 14th extends the protection of > most but not quite all of the BoR from Congress to the states > is more or less something the Supremes made up also. > > > >"For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites > > >than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by > > >requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. > > > > The question is, are there enough sensible people around to stop precisely > > that from happening? > > > How many does it take? I suspect the vast majority don't care > much one way or the other. They don't read, they don't care what > or if other people read, hell, I haven't even read Lolita myself, > saw the Kubrik film though. > > > > >Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my > > >words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a > > >Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether > > >I included material "offensive" to Creationists. > > > > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford > > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people > > most vocal about banning online speech. > > > > Self-label if you choose. But don't be too surprised when others > choose otherwise. More to the point, don't be too surprised when > others self label and rate their content in a way radically different to > the way you would. > > George > > Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 > > student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front > From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 15 19:01:32 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:01:32 -0700 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <20010815212142.A26371@sethf.com> Message-ID: <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 06:21 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:17:02PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions >> without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's >> just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. > > I'm sorry Declan, I just can't take the cypherpunks list > seriously anymore. After you testified for Federal government > prosecutors, helping to put members in jail - not once, but twice - > and anyone still respected you, I just lost all ability to regard that > zeitgeist as other than a joke. > From what I know of the situations, based on journalistic reports (from reports _other_ than from Declan), Declan took the obvious and legal steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: "Yes, I am a reporter for "Wired News."" "Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to." He was subpoenaed to testify, he and/or his employer hired lawyers to deal with the subpoena and to seek ways to state only things like the above, and, so far as I have ever heard, he did not offer "helpful" suggestions or speculations. By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court records. Declan has been to my house several times. (Choate has never been to my house and will never be welcome.) If he writes a story about me, or you, or anyone, and the court demands for evidentiary reasons that he confirm or deny that he authored a particular chunk of text, he would presumably do so. However, if FBI agents on a fishing expedition ask him for incriminating speculations, I assume he would tell them to leave. As for you, you are not to be taken seriously by anyone, narcs or others. --Tim May From sethf at sethf.com Wed Aug 15 16:34:09 2001 From: sethf at sethf.com (Seth Finkelstein) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) Message-ID: <200108152334.TAA20261@oobleck.mit.edu> [cypherpunky cryptobabble libertopians should take note!] Available at: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) Abstract: This report examines a secret category in N2H2's censorware, a product often sold under the name "BESS, The Internet Retriever". This category turns out to be for sites which must be uniformly prohibited, because they constitute a LOOPHOLE in the necessary control of censorware. The category contains sites which provide services of anonymity, privacy, language translation, humorous text transformations, even web page feature testing, and more. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf at sethf.com http://sethf.com http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php From declan at well.com Wed Aug 15 17:13:07 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:13:07 -0400 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: ; from decoy@iki.fi on Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:09:18AM +0300 References: <200108142231.f7EMVvC08027@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010815201307.A23046@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:09:18AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some > reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, > even if the meaning is implied. That's a common argument with which many Americans would probably agree. Eric Freedman at Hofstra law school has written a nice piece refuting it. It may even be available online. > >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do > >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the > >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may > >be banned.) > > So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? The prevailing community standards of online communities like xxx sites seem to be pretty liberal. :) > Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford > one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people Perhaps, but nice gestures lead to slippery slopes, IMHO. -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 15 17:14:34 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:14:34 -0400 Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: ; from decoy@iki.fi on Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 01:18:47AM +0300 References: Message-ID: <20010815201434.B23046@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 01:18:47AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Of course it's wrongheaded -- you're confusing the act, and the act of > distributing a record of an act. Well put. Photographs of murder are legal for newspapers to reproduce, generally speaking, why not porn? But we can't expect Choate to get this. (Additional hint to Choate: Murder is illegal, having sex generally isn't.) -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 15 17:17:02 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:17:02 -0400 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108152354.f7FNspC13329@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 04:55:09PM -0700 References: <200108152334.TAA20261@oobleck.mit.edu> <200108152354.f7FNspC13329@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010815201702.C23046@cluebot.com> At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. -Declan On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 04:55:09PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 04:34 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > > > [cypherpunky cryptobabble libertopians should take note!] > > > > > > > Hit and run insults to our list, oh my! > > I have decremented his reputation counter by the standard amount, and > have added his name to the Silicon Valley "don't hire this guy" data > base. So long as he stays on the East Coast, shouldn't be a problem for > him. > > > --Tim May From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 15 20:43:30 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:43:30 -0700 Subject: FW: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report] Message-ID: Dufus gasped: > > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > > > without commiting the act. > > > > A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in > > question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the > > picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. > > Absolutely the making is 'speech'. Oh it is? Well in that case, to be consistent, you'll have to tell us why the first amendment doesn't apply. Taking a picture is NOT free speech; showing/publishing the picture is. What a moron. > The distributing it is 'press'. Only a > lawyer would confuse the two. Only a non-lawyer would pull such a definition out of his ars. So, if I e-mail needle dick a picture, that's "press"? How so? Sounds like a speech activity to me. Oh wait, maybe Jimbo thinks that speech is to slander as press is to libel? Sorry, not so. Wearing a baseball cap that says, "Fuck Jim Choate" is freedom of speech, not freedom of the press (and mighty satisfying--the wearing not the fucking; nobody would actually want to do that). > We have a group of persons who commit an act > with a child. In the process a photograph is > taken. The photograph is distributed. > > Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is > not itself a crime, and in particular it is > protected as speech. Don't put words in my mouth, fat boy. What you have stated seems to be more your position. As I said, the taking of the picture is not speech, the distribution is. In either case, the sexual acts, the taking of pictures and the distribution ARE all crimes under current law. The position that a number of us on this list have taken is that the mere possession or distribution should not be a crime, per se, because of the rights guaranteed under the first amendment. > This assertion is wrong. Here's why. Well, it's your assertion (i.e, straw man). You should try to defeat arguments that your antagonists actually make. Nobody is fooled by the cheap shot of making up your own silly interpretations and "defeating" them. > (A bunch of self-serving nonsense predicated on a straw man, left out.) > So, can the child be 'consensual'? No. > Children for a variety of reasons are NOT... So, Jimbo is now telling us that someone who is 17 years and 364 days old does not have the "consensual abilities" of someone who is 18 years old? That must come as a shock to a lot of 16-year olds who consensually drive a car. > The picture is not protected speech by the > simple expedient that it was constrained or > forced upon at least one of the participants. Assuming /arguendo/ that there was force or at least no consent, the taking of the pictures may be illegal, immoral and fattening, but that doesn't mean the pictures are (protected) speech. > I guess that 97 percentile doesn't mean as > much as you thought. Anybody have any idea what dufus is trying to say here? > (this applies equaly to Declan's specious commentary as well) I'm sure it does, but of course, not in the way Jimbo means it. :'D So once again, folks, we meet the implacable Inchoate reasoning. I think I, and others, have said enough to support our position. Jimbo has offered nothing substantive in return and--if past experience is any teacher--is not going to do so. The smart people have already made up their minds. Therefore I rest my case and encourage Jimbo to mount his silly little soap box in our version of Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, and rant until the cows come home. I'll only re-emerge when it's time to clarify the next issue Jimbo gets wrong. S a n d y From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 15 21:07:45 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:07:45 -0700 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108160312.XAA20687@oobleck.mit.edu> Message-ID: <200108160407.f7G47YC14635@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 08:12 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:01:32PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> ... Declan took the obvious and legal >> steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: >> >> "Yes, I am a reporter for "Wired News."" >> >> "Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to." > > "Yes, I affirm under oath that the article is true" > "Objection. The witness cannot attest to the "truth" of the article." The cross-examiner may ask whether the witness _believes_ his article to be based on fact, but his opinion as to its truthfulness or not does not establish facts in a case. A reporters _tape recorded notes_ or _contemporaneous notes_ are more probative, which is a major reason some important cases have involved courts ordering reporters to produce their notes and reporters then refusing. Was Declan asked about the "truth" of the article? Did he testify with the words above? (Yes, I tried to find this quote with Google. Either the transcript hasn't been released, hasn't been posted, hasn't been Google, or that phrase was not used...even "the article is true" as a phrasal fragment.) Declan can tell us what he recalls of the proceedings. Has the transcript ever been released? Regardless, you seem to have some personal vendetta against DM. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 15 21:18:43 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:18:43 -0700 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108160418.f7G4IIC14706@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 08:17 PM, Jim Choate wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> Many of us don't believe this common belief today, that the First is >> mainly about political speech, is consistent with the intent of the >> Framers. > > Bullshit. > > The framers made no such distinction. A little thought will demonstrate > why such a distinction is specious, and clearly politically motivated. > > Any speech which is distinguished as political or not raises a question > of > metric. In particular, who and how. Those questions are political by > their > very nature. Any speech is political in nature. > Who you saying "Bullshit" to, nitwit? Read what I wrote more carefully. And read all the stuff you cut out. --Tim May From sethf at sethf.com Wed Aug 15 18:21:42 2001 From: sethf at sethf.com (Seth Finkelstein) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:21:42 -0400 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <20010815201702.C23046@cluebot.com>; from declan@well.com on Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:17:02PM -0400 References: <200108152334.TAA20261@oobleck.mit.edu> <200108152354.f7FNspC13329@slack.lne.com> <20010815201702.C23046@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010815212142.A26371@sethf.com> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:17:02PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions > without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's > just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. I'm sorry Declan, I just can't take the cypherpunks list seriously anymore. After you testified for Federal government prosecutors, helping to put members in jail - not once, but twice - and anyone still respected you, I just lost all ability to regard that zeitgeist as other than a joke. There was indeed a time I could deal with Liberbabble. That was before a certain journalist, who I helped a lot, did many things to raise my legal risks, and justified some of it in the name of Libertarianism (other parts were just his "character"). I said this to you at CFP 2001, and I'll say it again: This is not a game we're playing. People are going to jail. I'd be overjoyed if you didn't take me seriously. It's the backstabbing I worry about. I don't ever want to find you playing Federal Witness #1 against me too. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf at sethf.com http://sethf.com http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php From jamesd at echeque.com Wed Aug 15 21:44:49 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:44:49 -0700 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108160312.XAA20687@oobleck.mit.edu> References: <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B7AED51.13488.91F59A@localhost> -- On 15 Aug 2001, at 23:12, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > I can't convey how ludicrous it seems to me. Declan is the > Fed's best friend. That's not an insult, that's a fact. Thats baloney. Declan has been routinely harassed by the feds. > He's provided > important evidence that helped obtain two convictions. Bullshit. They only called him in order to intimidate reporters from covering the trial. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG r/KEjYFJ8qd6sh4aNB/cT3smEFD3iLfOxedKC8SX 4HLEA5rF83RLJ8KGsjjyLNhBgEpEpFc8jRElwby5C From mnorton at cavern.uark.edu Wed Aug 15 19:53:49 2001 From: mnorton at cavern.uark.edu (Mac Norton) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:53:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: Pot. Kettle. Chip. Shoulder. You boys are getting a little silly. MacN On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 06:21 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:17:02PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions > >> without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's > >> just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. > > > > I'm sorry Declan, I just can't take the cypherpunks list > > seriously anymore. After you testified for Federal government > > prosecutors, helping to put members in jail - not once, but twice - > > and anyone still respected you, I just lost all ability to regard that > > zeitgeist as other than a joke. > > > > From what I know of the situations, based on journalistic reports (from > reports _other_ than from Declan), Declan took the obvious and legal > steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: > > "Yes, I am a reporter for "Wired News."" > > "Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to." > > He was subpoenaed to testify, he and/or his employer hired lawyers to > deal with the subpoena and to seek ways to state only things like the > above, and, so far as I have ever heard, he did not offer "helpful" > suggestions or speculations. > > By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show > trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with > lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from > Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court > records. > > Declan has been to my house several times. (Choate has never been to my > house and will never be welcome.) > > If he writes a story about me, or you, or anyone, and the court demands > for evidentiary reasons that he confirm or deny that he authored a > particular chunk of text, he would presumably do so. However, if FBI > agents on a fishing expedition ask him for incriminating speculations, I > assume he would tell them to leave. > > As for you, you are not to be taken seriously by anyone, narcs or others. > > > --Tim May From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 20:16:01 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:16:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Jimbo sputtered: > > > > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > > > > the act. > > > > > > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the > > act does not > > > require outlawing the speech. > > > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > > without commiting the act. > > A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in > question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the > picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. Absolutely the making is 'speech'. The distributing it is 'press'. Only a lawyer would confuse the two. Let's look at the situation, if for nothing else to twist your tit ring... We have a group of persons who commit an act with a child. In the process a photograph is taken. The photograph is distributed. Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is not itself a crime, and in particular it is protected as speech. This assertion is wrong. Here's why. The person taking the picture was not the only participant who had a say. Each person in the picture and help create the event had a say. They were a participant in the 'speech' both in act and recording. The distribution, or 'press' is a different issue but follows. Now, the child is clearly a participant in that act as well as a participant in any claim of 'speech' that might be attributed to the picture (or recording, or whatever). Now the standard for expression of ones rights is that you are pretty much allowed to do whatever you want, until/unless you interfere with another. Then your right ends, and their right to self defence begins. Now the child clearly has both a right in the speech aspect as well as the self-defence aspect. So, can the child be 'consensual'? No. Children for a variety of reasons are NOT (and why somebody who claims to be as smart as you do doesn't get this makes me chuckle, google 'paiget' 'volume') simply 'little adults' as was so popularly, and universaly held until the later half of this centry. In other words they don't have the same 'consensual abilities as adults. Our law recognizes this and provides special protections as a result. So, we have a picture, at least one of the participants was forced against their wishes (or their guardians wishes, select as you may) to participate. So, can we really claim that the only issue is the right of speech with respect to the adults? No. The picture is not protected speech by the simple expedient that it was constrained or forced upon at least one of the participants. I guess that 97 percentile doesn't mean as much as you thought. (this applies equaly to Declan's specious commentary as well) -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 20:17:39 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:17:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: <200108152336.f7FNamC13182@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > Many of us don't believe this common belief today, that the First is > mainly about political speech, is consistent with the intent of the > Framers. Bullshit. The framers made no such distinction. A little thought will demonstrate why such a distinction is specious, and clearly politically motivated. Any speech which is distinguished as political or not raises a question of metric. In particular, who and how. Those questions are political by their very nature. Any speech is political in nature. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 20:20:08 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:20:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: If we had key escrow, Scarfo wouldn't be a problem (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:33:10 -0500 (CDT) From: Jim Choate To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" Cc: Dennis Glatting , Declan McCullagh , cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: Re: If we had key escrow, Scarfo wouldn't be a problem On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > To be clear, I am *NOT* arguing for key escrow. Just saying that since > I'm against it, I accept that there may be scope for judicious, > paper-trail oriented, key logging. Of course there is, the question is does one use the key logging to get probable cause; or as the 4th requires probable cause to do the key logging. The current trend is to use surveillance technology to obtain 'probable cause', this is in direct opposition to the letter and intent of the 4th. Got a warrant, scan, search, collect all you want. Don't have a warrant then leave people the hell alone. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 20:24:32 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:24:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show > trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with > lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from > Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court > records. Liar, check the archives. I never said anybody was dangerous. What I did say was that I felt the C-A-C-L philosophy was dangerous. I stand by that. I believe that were the C-A-C-L philosophy to take hold the results would make the death counts from Nazism and Communism in this century pail in comparison. As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a lot of crap. Stand by that too. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From domgm at optonline.net Wed Aug 15 15:45:23 2001 From: domgm at optonline.net (domgm at optonline.net) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:45:23 +0000 Subject: The best thing that ever happened Message-ID: <0GI500BRO3HNC8@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Thank you for your time reading this message. My name is Dominick Romano from Manalapan New Jersey. Finaly I don't worry about my mortgage, car, insurance and other payments. I have more time for my family and more money to make my dreams come true. If you want to be financially independent and you don't mind sending e-mail, DO NOT DELETE this message. Trust me! You can earn $46,600 or more in the next 90 days by sending e-mail. Seems impossible? Read the following letter and you'll see how tempting this program is. Most people can't resist not participating. Even me. And that's the whole point of it. More and more people will become part of it. Don't forget that currently more than 175,000,000 people are online worldwide! Due to the popularity of this letter on the internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are, absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results of this show has been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing, much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more as more people try it out, its been very exciting to be a part of lately. You will understand once you experience it. "HERE IT IS BELOW" _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ *** Print This Now For Future Reference *** The following income opportunity is one you may be interested in taking a look at. It can be started with VERY LITTLE investment and the income return is TREMENDOUS!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to make at least $46,600 in less than 90 days! Please read the enclosed program...THEN READ IT AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come into 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 dreams will come true. This multi-level e-mail order marketing program works perfectly...100\% EVERY TIME. E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this non-commercialized method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business using e-mail. 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 through multi-level methods by the mid to late 1990's. This is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry and of the 3,500,000 millionaires in the WORLD, 20\% ( 700,000) made their fortune in the last several years in MLM. Moreover, statistics show that over 100 people become millionaires everyday through Multi-Level Marketing. You may have heard this story before, but over the summer Donald Trump (A MULTI-BILLIONAIRE, ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST MEN IN THE WORLD) made an appearance on the David Letterman show. Dave asked him what he would do if he lost everything and had to start over from scratch. Without hesitating, Trump said he would find a good network marketing company and get to work. The audience started to hoot and boo him. He looked out at the audience and dead-panned his response "That's why I'm sitting up here and you are all sitting out there!" With network marketing you have two sources of income. Direct commissions from sales you make yourself and commissions from sales made by people you introduce to the business. Residual income is the secret of the wealthy. It means investing time or money once and getting paid again and again and again. In network marketing, it also means getting paid for the work of others. This program is currently being utilized in more than 50 different countries across the world. The enclosed INF0RMATION is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. My name is Johnathon Rourke. 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. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life and I am writing to share the experience in hopes that this will change your life FOREVER FINANCIALLY!!! In mid December, I received this program via e-mail. Six month's prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for INF0RMATION 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 would work or not. One claimed that I would 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 1997 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 into debt. After I got a pencil and paper and figured it out, I would at least get my money back. But like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! After determining the program was LEGAL and NOT A CHAIN LETTER, I decided "WHY NOT." Initially I sent out 100,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any money for printing to send out the program, and because all of my orders are fulfilled via e-mail, the only expense is my time. I am telling you like it is, I hope it doesn't turn you off, but I promised myself that I would not "rip-off" 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 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to "RECEIVE at least 20 ORDERS FOR REPORT #1 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO!" My first step in making $46,000 in 90 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to "RECEIVE AT LEAST 100+ ORDERS FOR REPORT #2 WITHIN 2 WEEKS. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. ONCE YOU HAVE 100 ORDERS, THE REST IS EASY, RELAX, YOU WILL MAKE YOUR $46,000 GOAL." Well, I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 100,000, I received $42,000 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 won't work, you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20+ orders for REPORT #1, and 100+ orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $46,000 or more in 90 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am 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 are if financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! Sincerely, Johnathon Rourke 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 report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more...and your name will be on everyone 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, INF0RMATION, materials and opportunity to become financially independent, IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! "THINK ABOUT IT" Before you delete this program from your mailbox, 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 lot of money! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. IT WORKS! Jody Jacobs, Richmond, VA HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR$ INSTRUCTIONS: This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. I am sure that you could use up to $46,000 or more in the next 90 days. Before you say "BULL... ", please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter, but a perfectly legal money making opportunity. Basically, this is what you do: As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Because of the global nature of the internet, you will be able to recruit new multi-level business partners from all over the world, and we offer a product for EVERY dollar sent. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the GREATEST Multi-Level Mail Order Marketing anywhere. This is what you MUST do: 1. Order all 5 reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). a. For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! b. When you place your order, make sure you order each of the five reports. You will need all five reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. c. Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the five reports. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. 2. IMPORTANT-- DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than is instructed below in steps "a" through "g" or you will lose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you'll also see how it doesn't work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will not work. a. Look below for the listing of available reports. b. After you've ordered the five reports, take this advertisement and REM0VE the name and address under REPORT #5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their $46,000! Also, change the name of the company, the address, and the REM0VE e-mail address on the top of this document to your own. c. Move the name and address under REPORT #4 down to REPORT #5. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. f. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. g. Insert your name/address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you copy every name and address ACCURATELY! 3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to the instruction portion of this letter. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $25). You obviously already have an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing INF0RMATION which includes how to send bulk e-mails, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much, much more. In addition you will be provided with INF0MATION on Internet Marketing Clubs such as INTERNET MARKETING RESOURCES(IMR): This is one the premiere internet marketing clubs on the INTERNET. This club provides a forum where internet marketers from all over the world can exchange ideas and secrets on Internet Marketing. In addition, members of this club are provided free internet marketing tools and services for the Do-Yourself-Internet-Marketer. They will provide you with free bulk e-mail software and up to 1,000,000 fresh e-mail addresses each week. This club will provide you with hundreds of free resources which include: How to obtain free web sites, how to obtain top rankings in search engines for your web-site, how to send bulk e-mail into AOL and Compuserve, how to market your products on newsgroups, free classified ads, electronic malls, bulletin boards, banner ads and much more. There are two primary methods of building your downline: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL 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 only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a 0.3\% response. Using a good list the response could be much better. Also, many people will send out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000. But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.3\% response, that is only 6 orders for REPORT #1. Those 6 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 12,000. Out of those 0.3\%, 36 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 36 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 72,000. The 0.3\% response to that is 216 orders for REPORT #3. Those 216 send out 2,000 programs each for a 432,000 total. The 0.3\% response to that is 1,296 orders for REPORT #4. Those 1,296 send out 2,000 programs each for a 2,592,000 total. The 0.3\% response to that is 7,776 orders for REPORT #5. That's 7,776 $5 bills for you, CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $30 + $180 + $1,080+ $6,480 + $38,880 for a total of $46,650!!! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,994 OUT OF THE 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 2,000. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! By the way, your cost to participate in this is practically nothing. You obviously already have an internet connection and e-mail is FREE!!! REPORT #2 and #5 will show you the best methods for bulk emailing, tell you where to obtain free bulk e-mail software and where to obtain e-mail lists and show you how to send out 1,000,000 e-mails for free. METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET 1. Advertising on the 'Net is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 6 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 6 downline members. Follow this example to achieve the STAGGERING results below. 1st level--your 6 members with $5 ($5 x 6)........................$30 2nd level--6 members from those 6 ($5 x 36)....................$180 3rd level--6 members from those 36 ($5 x 216)............ $1,080 4th level--6 members from those 216 ($5 x 1,296)....... $6,480 5th level-6 members from those 1,296 ($5 x 7,776)... $38,880 ...............................................$46,650 _________________________________________________________________________ Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 6 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Many people will get 100's of participants! THINK ABOUT IT! For every $5.00 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the report they ordered. THAT'S IT! ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will guarantee that the e-mail THEY send out, with YOUR name and address on it, will be prompt because they can't advertise until they receive the report! _________________________________________________________________________ AVAILABLE REPORTS _________________________________________________________________________ *** Order Each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME *** Notes: ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED ALWAYS SEND YOUR ORDER VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least two sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, include: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering (b) your e-mail address (So your report can come by email) (c) your name & postal address. **** Place your name in the 1st report. Move the rest of the names down causing whoever is in 5th position to go off the list.**** PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: ______________________________________________________ REPORT #1 "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM Dominick Romano 13 Constitution Court Manalapan, New Jersey 07726 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Stelli Stanley 366 Fairway Dr. North Vancouver, BC, Canada V7G 1Y6 REPORT #3 "The Secrets to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: Adam Beazley 500 Saint Joseph st. Lafayette, LA 70506 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Spatter 2700 Waterview Pkwy. #4612 Richardson TX 75080 ______________________________________________________ REPORT #5 "How to SEND 1,000,000 e-mails for FREE" ORDER REPORT #5 FROM: Jamie Strickland P.o Box 253 Charlton Heights, WV 25040 ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ There currently more than 175,000,000 people online worldwide! ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* * TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. * Send for the five reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. * Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions exactly, your results WILL BE SUCCESSFUL! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF AND KNOW YOU WILL SUCCEED! ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT#2. If you don't, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. If you want to generate more income, send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program. Please answer one question. DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE? If the answer is yes, please look at the following facts about this program: 1. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE! 2. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO SHIP! 3. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST YOU ANYTHING TO ADVERTISE! 4. YOU ARE UTILIZING THE POWER OF THE INTERNET AND THE POWER OF MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING TO DISTRIBUTE YOUR PRODUCT ALL OVER THE WORLD! 5. YOUR ONLY EXPENSES OTHER THAN YOUR INITIAL $25 INVESTMENT IS YOUR TIME! 6. VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE INCOME YOU GENERATE FROM THIS PROGRAM IS PURE PROFIT! ******* T E S T I M O N I A L S ******* This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rule of not trying to place your name in a different position, it won't work and you'll lose a lot of potential income. I'm living proof that it works. It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money, with little cost to you. If you do choose to participate, follow the program exactly, and you'll be on your way to financial security. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody, and I live in Chicago, IL. I am a cost accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received the program I grumbled to Jody about receiving "junk mail." I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work... well, the laugh was on me! Within two weeks she had received over 50 responses. Within 45 days she had received over $147,200 in $5 bills! I was shocked! I was sure that I had it all figured and that it wouldn't work. I AM a believer now. I have joined Jody in her "hobby." I did have seven more years until retirement, but I think of the "rat race" and it's not for me. We owe it all to MLM. Mitchell Wolf MD., Chicago, IL The main reason for this letter is to convince you that this system is honest, lawful, extremely profitable, and is a way to get a large amount of money in a short time. I was approached several times before I checked this out. I joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received $36,470.00 in the first 14 weeks, with money still coming in. Sincerely yours, Pam Hedland Halmstad, Sweden Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. I surprised when I found my medium-size post office box crammed with orders! For awhile, it got so overloaded that I had to start picking up my mail at the window. I'll make more money this year than any 10 years of my life before. The nice thing about this deal is that it doesn't matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return. Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed another program, 11 months passed then it came...I didn't delete this one!...I made more than $41,000 on the first try!! Mohamed, Cairo, Egypt This is my third time to participate in this plan. We have quit our jobs, and will soon buy a home on the beach and live off the interest on our money. The only way on earth that this plan will work for you is if you do it. For your sake, and for your family's sake don't pass up this golden opportunity. Good luck and happy spending! Sam Lee Suva, Fiji Islands ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOUR TURN DECISIVE ACTION YIELDS POWERFUL RESULTS _________________________________________________________________________ PLEASE NOTE: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal agency) 1-(800)827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax requirements. Your earnings and results are highly dependant on your activities and advertising. This letter constitutes no guarantees stated nor implied. In the event that it is determined that this letter constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. Any testimonials or amounts of earnings listed in this letter may be factual or non-verifiable. If you have any question of the legality of this letter contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington DC. ______________________________________________________________________ Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. To be Removed please reply to this e-mail with the words REMOVE in the subject area. From sethf at sethf.com Wed Aug 15 20:12:35 2001 From: sethf at sethf.com (Seth Finkelstein) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> References: <20010815212142.A26371@sethf.com> <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <200108160312.XAA20687@oobleck.mit.edu> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:01:32PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > ... Declan took the obvious and legal > steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: > > "Yes, I am a reporter for "Wired News."" > > "Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to." "Yes, I affirm under oath that the article is true" Once he says that, it's basically equivalent to testifying to the contents of the article in court. Making such an affirmation is not inevitable. People can disown articles. This not to recommend such disowning. However, the prosecution is well aware of the risks that it can happen. But if the US was a police state, Declan would not be griping about his plane ticket as his biggest concern in such a situation. He certainly would not be welcomed back to gather information on people he might help put in jail in a future trial. I can't convey how ludicrous it seems to me. Declan is the Fed's best friend. That's not an insult, that's a fact. He's provided important evidence that helped obtain two convictions. He shows every sign of repeating the performance. And nobody even seems to notice. Everybody goes by what he posts, the politically correct (for here) liberpunk anarcrypt cyberbilge. Not what he *does*. It's utterly unreal. But hey, he's a Libertarian(-type), and I'm not. So don't take me seriously. I have my own legal risks to worry about. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf at sethf.com http://sethf.com http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php P.S. Regarding Jim Choate's "speculations", as far as I know, you *do* have "lots of guns and money". Why aren't you also giving him a pass for restating what are presumably your own true statements? As far as being "a dangerous person", well, that depends who one thinks is your target. From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 15 21:46:16 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:46:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report] (fwd) Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Oh it is? Well in that case, to be consistent, you'll have to tell us why > the first amendment doesn't apply. It does apply. > Taking a picture is NOT free speech; Making the picture is speech because it represents an expression. > showing/publishing the picture is. What a moron. No, this is sharing, that takes copies, that takes 'press'. > > Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is > > not itself a crime, and in particular it is > > protected as speech. > > Don't put words in my mouth, fat boy. I'm not, simply paraphrasing your C-A-C-L commentary from past discussion. And the best you can do is 'fat boy'? I'm surprised you made it to 50th percentile. > What you have stated seems to be more your position. Not at all. My position is that pedophilia, and paraphanalia related to it is wrong and not protected speech or press. That the material involves a non-consenting participant and that their self-defence trumps any individual 'speech' rights you might claim. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ishman23 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 23:54:49 2001 From: ishman23 at hotmail.com (Derek Belmontes) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:54:49 Subject: FREE REPORT...2 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME Message-ID: <200108160505.AAA20465@einstein.ssz.com> Dear Friend, AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV : ''Make as little or as much money from your home with an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time'' THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! I RECOMMEND YOU PRINT THIS LETTER FOR EASIER READING. ================================================================ Before you say ''Bull,''please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost.” DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: '' Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received total $ 610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in.'' Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: ================ Order all 5 reports shown on the list below================= For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. === When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00. === Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. === IMPORTANT: DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step '' 1 through 6 '' or you will lose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the rewards!!! 1.... After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5.... Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6.... Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! ================================================================ **** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case if you lose any data. To assist you with marketing your business on the Internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more. There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY ================================================================ Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let's also assume that the mailing receive only a 0.02% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0.02%. Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands e-mails instead of only 5,000 each). Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a 0.02% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1. Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000. Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0.02% responded with orders. That's 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2 Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails. The 0.02% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3. Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out. The 0.02% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e- mails. The 0.02% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5 THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=$500,000.00 (half million). Your total income in this example is: 1..... $50 + 2..... $500 + 3..... $5,000 + 4..... $50,000 + 5..... $500,000........ Grand Total=$555,550.00 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSES AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ! ================================================================ REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even 1/4 of those people mailed 100,000 e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET ================================================================ Advertising on the net is very, very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response. We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along. For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all orders. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report. ====================== AVAILABLE REPORTS==================== ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY. Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address. PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : ================================================================ REPORT # 1 : ''The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net'' Order Report # 1 from: Derek Belmontes 407 E. 11th Bishop, TX 78343 USA _________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 2 : ''The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net'' Order Report # 2 from : Bev Waggener 3937 SW Stonybrook Dr. Topeka, KS 66610 USA _________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 3 : ''The Secret to Multilevel marketing on the net'' Order Report # 3 from: Kevin Dodd 150 Main St. North P.O. Box #74061 Brampton, Ontario LV6 1MO ________________________________________________________________ REPORT # 4 : ''How to become a millionaire utilizing MLM & the Net'' Order Report # 4 from: Kris H. Webber Sankt Hansgade 24, 3th. Copenhagen 2200 Denmark _______________________________________________________________________ _ REPORT # 5 : ''HOW TO SEND 1 MILLION E-MAILS FOR FREE'' Order Report # 5 from: Loren Stone P.O. Bx 6232 Clearfield, UT 84089 USA _______________________________________________________________________ _ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: === If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do. === After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business !!! ================================================================ FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: 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. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do Not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. This is a legitimate program that honestly works like a charm. If we all would open our eyes and see the possibilities, then we would understand that we can help each other get rich, and live life to the fullest. You have nothing to lose, and the world to gain. LET’S HELP EACH OTHER. Do not delay! Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 ...........# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails 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! ====================MORE TESTIMONIALS========================= '' It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in. My first month I made $ 20,560.00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $ 362,840.00. Life is beautiful, Thanks to the to Internet''. Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand ================================================================ “I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else.......11 months passed then it luckily came again.....I did not delete this one! I made more than$490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks.” Susan De Suza, New York, N.Y. ================================================================ ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! =============================================================== If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C. ============================THE END========================= This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.1618, http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/commercialemail/S771index.html Further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to this email address with the word "remove" in the subject From decoy at iki.fi Wed Aug 15 14:09:18 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:09:18 +0300 (EEST) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: <200108142231.f7EMVvC08027@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >However, in a free society with protections similar to the First >Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what government >may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows >government to regulate speech or music or any other such form of >expression based on its offensiveness to some. Nothing. Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech, but considering the strength of the opposite view nowadays, I would not be surprised if the First was gutted in this regard. And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, even if the meaning is implied. >(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do >with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the >"online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may >be banned.) So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? >"For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites >than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by >requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. The question is, are there enough sensible people around to stop precisely that from happening? >Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my >words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a >Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether >I included material "offensive" to Creationists. Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people most vocal about banning online speech. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From aimee.farr at pobox.com Wed Aug 15 22:29:23 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:29:23 -0500 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter Vol. 1 No. 1 Message-ID: [Since some remailer-idiots want to talk about bombs in here and grossly mischaracterize an entire forum.] In this issue.... US v. "DUMB BOMB GUY," No 5555 (...in this country, recently.) [*FN1] ------------------------------ .... He became friendly with a member of a different motorcycle club who he knew as Bo, an undercover identity assumed by Special Agent X. Special Agent X had infiltrated a motorcycle club in an attempt to uncover evidence of illegal firearm and narcotics trafficking in the outlaw motorcycle club community.(1) Both Eaton and Special Agent X served as the enforcers for their respective motorcycle clubs. .... Shortly thereafter, Special Agent X went to Eaton's house to pick up the pipe bombs. Eaton gave X three constructed pipe bombs and four plastic bags filled with smokeless powder to put in the pipes. Special Agent X asked Eaton to explain the most effective way to blow up a car. Eaton responded by telling him to place the bombs near the gas tank. During the course of their meeting, Special Agent X indicated that the bombs would be used on someone who deserved it. Eaton acknowledged that X's planned actions were felonious. .... Eaton was subsequently indicted for unlawfully possessing three unregistered explosive devices in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). .... ...[I]t shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun."). There is no similar statute criminalizing the possession of a destructive device such as a pipe bomb. Without such a statute, it was not legally impossible for Eaton to register the pipe bomb.... He could have imprinted a serial number on the pipe bomb and attempted to register it with the ATF. Whether the ATF would have accepted the pipe bomb for registration does not bear on the issue of legal impossibility. See id. Thus, Eaton was not deprived of due process. .... (1) These clubs describe themselves as outlaw motorcycle clubs because they "live outside the law." --------------------- BLR's Analysis: --------------------- -Bombs are bad. -Judges are "not amused" by bombs. -Special Agent X doesn't like bombs. -Make sure your bombs conform to any applicable ATF registration requirements. *laughter* ~Aimee From newexcen at hotmail.com Wed Aug 15 22:34:14 2001 From: newexcen at hotmail.com (NewExtensionCentral.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:34:14 -0500 Subject: .BIZ .INFO domain extensions Message-ID: <200108160534.AAA20846@einstein.ssz.com> Dear Internet Domain Registrant The impending launch of the new .BIZ, .INFO, .PRO, and .NAME domain extensions starting October 01, 2001 is one of the most anticipated developments on the Internet of all time. As awareness and demand for these exciting new extensions increases, it will become incresingly difficult to reserve a good domain name. You need to confirm the availability of your domain name as soon as possible. Simply visit: http://www.NewExtensionCentral.com and you can find out in 30 seconds if someone has pre-registered your name. "While .com names hold the most prestige, the next frontier is the new suffixes -.info, .biz, and .pro likely to become available later this year..." -BUSINESSWEEK MAGAZINE, April 16, 2001. It is expected that over 3 million of these new domain names will be registered in the first few minutes when registration officially opens later this year. As the general public becomes aware of these new extensions later this year, registration volumes and values of these names will skyrocket. If your domain names are important to you, be prepared and pre-register them now. Protect your domain name from cybersquatters, speculators, and fraudulent trademark holders. NewExtensionCentral.com has the premier pre-registration engine to help you to secure the domain you want. Over 300,000 names have already been queued in the system and good names are going fast. Do not wait until the last minute. Go to http://www.NewExtensionCentral.com now to pre-register. ####################################################################### This message is sent in compliance with the new email bill section 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618 and is not intended for residents in the State of WA, NV, CA & VA. If you have received this mailing in error, or do not wish to receive any further mailings pertaining to this topic, simply send email to: del_list_tld at yahoo.com. We respect all removal requests. ####################################################################### From declan at well.com Wed Aug 15 22:04:59 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:04:59 -0400 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:01:32PM -0700 References: <20010815212142.A26371@sethf.com> <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010816010459.A7316@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:01:32PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > From what I know of the situations, based on journalistic reports (from > reports _other_ than from Declan), Declan took the obvious and legal > steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: > > "Yes, I am a reporter for "Wired News."" > > "Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to." > > He was subpoenaed to testify, he and/or his employer hired lawyers to > deal with the subpoena and to seek ways to state only things like the > above, and, so far as I have ever heard, he did not offer "helpful" > suggestions or speculations. That is correct. I refused to do anything except confirm I wrote the article (first I hired a lawyer tried to quash the subpoena, but the judge did not grant our motion). That's why AUSA London asked the judge to declare me a "hostile witness". My writeup is here: http://www.politechbot.com/p-01883.html Naturally I will not reveal conversations I have as part of my newsgathering role that are confidential, private, on background, off-the-record, etc. Because my job requires that I be on call 24 hours and many conversations can be potentially related to topics I cover, I believe it is prudent to take a broad view of what I consider to be protected from prosecutorial inquiries. I don't think the transcript is online. I've been planning to buy it, and I'll get around to it next month. Anyway, Seth is becoming increasingly deranged; I'm not sure it's worth taking him seriously even to write a few paragraphs in reply. -Declan From decoy at iki.fi Wed Aug 15 15:18:47 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:18:47 +0300 (EEST) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: >> Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as >> equal to other speech, > >But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so >offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to >create the speech. So legislate the ACTS, not the speech. >No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want >as long as it contains 'speech'. But one *is* guaranteed a whole bunch of privacy rights and self-determination. If one *wants*, for one reason or another, to engage in the production of porn, who are you to say it cannot be done? The stuff that results is then just speech. >While the 'speech' part is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to >resolve the issues relating to the acts) Of course it's wrongheaded -- you're confusing the act, and the act of distributing a record of an act. >there is still the component of the acts against minors that needs to be >dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'. Not speech, but not relevant either. What results from recording the acts *is* speech, and should be treated as such. In fact, even if the original acts constitute a felony, I think it is a separate issue whether dissemination of the resulting speech can be controlled. Punish the pornographer for any provable violation of other people's rights, but do not touch porn that was produced. Then there's the nagging question of whether all of the so called child pornography actually calls for a violation of a minor's rights. I won't go there here. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From michael3341 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 16 04:02:24 2001 From: michael3341 at hotmail.com (michael3341 at hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 04:02:24 Subject: Register to win your Dream Vacation . Message-ID: <200108151957.DAA01694@mercury.zhaopin.com.cn> You have been specially selected to qualify for the following: Premium Vacation Package and Pentium PC Giveaway To review the details of the please click on the link with the confirmation number below: http://www.1xin.net/wintrip Confirmation Number#Lh340 Please confirm your entry within 24 hours of receipt of this confirmation. Wishing you a fun filled vacation! If you should have any additional questions or cann't connect to the site do not hesitate to contact me direct: mailto:vacation at btamail.net.cn?subject=Help! From walter at walterbresert.com Thu Aug 16 03:19:13 2001 From: walter at walterbresert.com (Walter Bressert) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 05:19:13 -0500 Subject: From Walter Bressert: New Trading Program. Message-ID: <200108161020.GAA04021@rutgers.rutgers.edu> Learn how to enter a market with a $200 POINT RISK, or lower, with Walter's new 4-STEP TRADING MASTERY PROGRAM. THEORY TO ACTUAL TRADING This trading package not only gives you the tools to trade, but also real-time trading with Walter during live, interactive trading sessions, providing you with the opportunity to take what you have learned from theory to actual hands-on application with Walter as your trading coach. Whether you are new to cycle trading, or a previous customer that wants to remain current on Walter_s trading techniques, this is an unsurpassed opportunity to benefit from Walter_s latest cycle trading techniques that will improve your timing and lower your risk exposure. Find out if you can benefit, go to _ http://www.walterbressert.com/1234.htm NOTE: This is a time-sensitive special offer that includes over $1200 in DISCOUNTS & BONUSES that EXPIRES ON 8/22/01. Additional discounts may apply to previous customers. Regards, Teresa Bressert WALTER BRESSERT, INC. Voice: 312.893.0801 Mailto:teresa at walterbressert.com YOU CAN BUY BOTTOMS & SELL TOPS! Important Disclaimer http://www.walterbressert.com/disclaimer There is a loss in trading futures Removal Instructions: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, click on the email link below. Be sure to provide your full name and email address as we have it on file. Mailto:Remove at walterbressert.com From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 16 08:22:34 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:22:34 -0700 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108161228.IAA21799@oobleck.mit.edu> References: <200108160407.f7G47YC14635@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 09:07:45PM -0700 Message-ID: <3B7B82CA.18250.1DF3E6@localhost> -- On 16 Aug 2001, at 8:28, Seth Fink wrote: > [regarding stool-pigeoning] "The Government is not seeking any > source material, ..." "The limited purpose of the subpoena is > to have you review two of your published articles ... and have > you verify that [Jim Bell] in fact told you those things." The government was not genuinely seeking any material. It was just trying to give any reporter who covered the matter a hard time. Which by an amazing coincidence happens to be exactly what you are doing. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TosRjBx8GcUdAOxWxsL3t6DicXlFQo65b94hoqFQ 4GzCzb2DXJvW08xZDO5x/LNNAMpaiOwVsS4IF13Ji From sethf at sethf.com Thu Aug 16 05:28:42 2001 From: sethf at sethf.com (Seth Finkelstein) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108160407.f7G47YC14635@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 09:07:45PM -0700 References: <200108160312.XAA20687@oobleck.mit.edu> <200108160407.f7G47YC14635@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <200108161228.IAA21799@oobleck.mit.edu> [regarding stool-pigeoning] [Tim May] >>> to limit his testimony to statements of the form: ^^^^^^^^^^^ [Seth Finkelstein] >> "Yes, I affirm under oath that the article is true" [Tim May] > Was Declan asked about the "truth" of the article? Did he testify > with the words above? http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2001.03.05-2001.03.11/msg00323.html "The Government is not seeking any source material, ..." "The limited purpose of the subpoena is to have you review two of your published articles ... and have you verify that [Jim Bell] in fact told you those things." My understanding is that he did verify well enough for those needs. I followed your "form" in wording, I didn't think you meant exact quotes. Now, certainly, it's not that he wanted to do it, or he was happy to do it. But I really won't care how much he'll moan and groan and play the violin if he does things to help create a trial involving *me*. > Regardless, you seem to have some personal vendetta against DM. Ahem. Regarding vendettas, may I point out that this thread has proceeded from both you and Declan flaming me for one mildly flippant remark about the philosophy of libercryptoanarpunkism? However, if you *ask* ... I think our mutual feeling are very evident, and it would be silly to deny them. In the past, Declan did much to raise my legal risks of a lawsuit, in retaliation for my not giving him confidential information. I am quite concerned he will continue this pattern, and it is one of my largest worries in doing activism now, of the type I just posted. I've supported Bennett Haselton of Peacefire in his charge of plagiarism against Declan McCullagh. Bennett's account fits with my own experience of Declan's character. Declan has obviously not been pleased with that. See the second Peacefire *press release* at http://peacefire.org/censorware/BAIR/wired-press-message.6-23-2000.txt I saw how contemptuously Declan treated the DeCSS programmers: "The general feeling has been that Mr McCullagh acted in an unprofessional manner regarding his article and in an immature manner when dealing with the feedback." [Matthew R. Pavlovich, the name might be familiar] Ref'ed in: http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg27564.html There's plenty more. But hey, according to Declan, I'm deranged. So who to believe? Declan is a fine chanter of rants, while in contrast, I am Not A Libertarian. That should settle the issue right there. I want Declan as far away from me as possible regarding anything which could turn into a legal situation. Call that feeling whatever you wish. The difference between some flames on a rantfest mailing list, and being jailed, just doesn't compare. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf at sethf.com http://sethf.com http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php From adam at homeport.org Thu Aug 16 07:33:55 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:33:55 -0400 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: References: <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010816103355.A12021@weathership.homeport.org> Mac, we've always been silly. Its part of our charm. Adam On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 09:53:49PM -0500, Mac Norton wrote: | Pot. Kettle. Chip. Shoulder. | You boys are getting a little silly. | MacN | | On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: | | > On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 06:21 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: | > | > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:17:02PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: | > >> At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions | > >> without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's | > >> just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. | > > | > > I'm sorry Declan, I just can't take the cypherpunks list | > > seriously anymore. After you testified for Federal government | > > prosecutors, helping to put members in jail - not once, but twice - | > > and anyone still respected you, I just lost all ability to regard that | > > zeitgeist as other than a joke. | > > | > | > From what I know of the situations, based on journalistic reports (from | > reports _other_ than from Declan), Declan took the obvious and legal | > steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: | > | > "Yes, I am a reporter for "Wired News."" | > | > "Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to." | > | > He was subpoenaed to testify, he and/or his employer hired lawyers to | > deal with the subpoena and to seek ways to state only things like the | > above, and, so far as I have ever heard, he did not offer "helpful" | > suggestions or speculations. | > | > By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show | > trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with | > lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from | > Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court | > records. | > | > Declan has been to my house several times. (Choate has never been to my | > house and will never be welcome.) | > | > If he writes a story about me, or you, or anyone, and the court demands | > for evidentiary reasons that he confirm or deny that he authored a | > particular chunk of text, he would presumably do so. However, if FBI | > agents on a fishing expedition ask him for incriminating speculations, I | > assume he would tell them to leave. | > | > As for you, you are not to be taken seriously by anyone, narcs or others. | > | > | > --Tim May -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From ptrei at rsasecurity.com Thu Aug 16 07:36:08 2001 From: ptrei at rsasecurity.com (Trei, Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:36:08 -0400 Subject: Pissing match [was RE: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE... ] Message-ID: While you folks engage in mutually destructive bickering kicked off by a silly, single line of hyperbole, I actually went and looked at the referenced article. It's actually quite interesting, and includes a decent list of mechanisms which can be used to provide better anonymity for websufers. I'll give the reference again: > http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php > > Peter Trei From bkester at aventail.com Thu Aug 16 10:37:10 2001 From: bkester at aventail.com (Beth Kester) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:37:10 -0700 Subject: remove Message-ID: From declan at well.com Thu Aug 16 08:09:01 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:09:01 -0400 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108161228.IAA21799@oobleck.mit.edu>; from sethf@sethf.com on Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 08:28:42AM -0400 References: <200108160312.XAA20687@oobleck.mit.edu> <200108160407.f7G47YC14635@slack.lne.com> <200108161228.IAA21799@oobleck.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20010816110901.A1212@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 08:28:42AM -0400, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > been pleased with that. See the second Peacefire *press release* at > http://peacefire.org/censorware/BAIR/wired-press-message.6-23-2000.txt Of course, the opposing view is here: http://www.well.com/~declan/bair/ > I saw how contemptuously Declan treated the DeCSS programmers: > There's plenty more. But hey, according to Declan, I'm deranged. > So who to believe? Declan is a fine chanter of rants, while in contrast, > I am Not A Libertarian. That should settle the issue right there. No, plenty of lefties think Seth is deranged as well. Some, like Michael Sims of Slashdot, have gone public with their thoughts. I suspect this will be my last post in this thread. Arguing with Net-loons on a crusade is usually not a very productive experience in general, and in this case in particular even more so. -Declan From webmaster at us.oracle.com Thu Aug 16 11:54:39 2001 From: webmaster at us.oracle.com (webmaster at us.oracle.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Username/password Message-ID: <200108161854.LAA11593@web34.us.oracle.com> Thank you for requesting your account information. Please use the following Username and Password to access the following services: my.oracle.com... http://my.oracle.com Oracle.com... http://www.oracle.com Oracle Technology Network... http://otn.oracle.com Oracle Applications Network... http://appsnet.oracle.com Oracle E-Business Network... http://www.oracle.com/ebusinessnetwork Oracle Learning Network... http://www.oracle.com/education/oln Username: jcpunk Password: jcpunk From freematt at coil.com Thu Aug 16 09:49:39 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:49:39 -0400 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <200108160407.f7G47YC14635@slack.lne.com> References: <200108160407.f7G47YC14635@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: At 11:01 AM -0400 8/14/01, Seth Finkelstein wrote: >Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:01:57 -0400 (EDT) >From: Seth Finkelstein >To: freematt at coil.com >Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE - censorware vs. privacy & anonymity > >[All the cypherpunky cryptobabble liberanartopists should care!] Seth, Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, but I was out of town. I really can't send this to Freematt's Alerts as I don't want to censor what you wrote, but on the other hand I don't want to explain to my readers the origin of your hostility for pro-freedom libertarians. I've said this before, but lets stick to fighting censorship and lets leave the petty insults and past net intrigue alone. I'm willing. Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From morlockelloi at yahoo.com Thu Aug 16 13:17:24 2001 From: morlockelloi at yahoo.com (Morlock Elloi) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Digression Message-ID: <20010816201724.53844.qmail@web13202.mail.yahoo.com> Sorry to bother the audience with purely crypto issues, I just wonder if anyone else evaluated this Ferguson's paper on apparent simplicity and therefore insecurity of Rijndael: http://www.xs4all.nl/~vorpal/pubs/rdalgeq.html BTW, where are the archives to that crypto-coding list (whatever the name was) ? ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From cypherpunks at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 17:46:04 2001 From: cypherpunks at ssz.com (cypherpunks at ssz.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:46:04 -1000 (GMT) Subject: Battle Tested Police Watch Message-ID: <200108170049.UAA07424@ns.chase-durer.com> 10% Discount and Free Shipping for all Police Employees! Chase-Durer's SPECIAL FORCES 1000 Swiss-Made Chronograph Watch is shock-resistant, accurate, dives to 1,000 feet and is great-looking. See it at www.chase-durer.com Lee Beale CHASE-DURER, LTD. lbeale at chase-durer.com Tel: 310-550-7280 Member, American Watch Guild This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply to this email address with the word "remove" in the subject line. From rah at shipwright.com Thu Aug 16 12:57:02 2001 From: rah at shipwright.com (R. A. Hettinga) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:57:02 -0400 Subject: DCSB: Arnold Reinhold; Product 'Q' and Crypto Market Failures Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [The Harvard Club is now "business casual". No more jackets and ties, but see below for details. While it lasts, anyway. Since last year's dot-bomb, the suit-ratio in the main dining room has been asymptotically approaching unity. :-). --RAH] The Digital Commerce Society of Boston Presents Arnold Reinhold "Product 'Q': The Market Failure of Most Cryptographic Products" Tuesday, September 4th, 2001 12 - 2 PM The Downtown Harvard Club of Boston One Federal Street, Boston, MA The term "Q" is used in physics as a parameter that describes the quality of a resonant circuit. In product development Q is a metaphor for how difficult it is to meet potential market needs. This analysis will be applied to several past product successes and failures and then to present and proposed products of interest to electronic commerce. Arnold Reinhold is an independent computer consultant and author. He previously managed software development groups at Computervision Corp. and at Automatix Inc, which he co-founded. Mr. Reinhold is co-author of The Internet for Dummies Quick Reference and E-mail for Dummies. He holds a Masters degree in Business Administration from the Harvard Business School. He has created several web site dealing with cryptography including diceware.com and ciphersaber. This meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston will be held on Tuesday, September 4th, 2001, from 12pm - 2pm at the Downtown Branch of the Harvard Club of Boston, on One Federal Street. The price for lunch is $37.50. This price includes lunch, room rental, A/V hardware if necessary, and the speakers' lunch. The Harvard Club has relaxed its dress code, which is now "business casual", meaning no sneakers or jeans. Fair warning: since we purchase these luncheons in advance, we will be unable to refund the price of your meal if the Club finds you in violation of what's left of its dress code. We need to receive a company check, or money order, (or, if we *really* know you, a personal check) payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", by Saturday, September 1st, or you won't be on the list for lunch. Checks payable to anyone else but The Harvard Club of Boston will have to be sent back. Checks should be sent to Robert Hettinga, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02131. Again, they *must* be made payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", in the amount of $37.50. Please include your e-mail address so that we can send you a confirmation If anyone has questions, or has a problem with these arrangements (we've had to work with glacial A/P departments more than once, for instance), please let us know via e-mail, and we'll see if we can work something out. Upcoming speakers for DCSB are: October Jean Camp Trust and Risk in Digital Commerce As you can see, :-), we are actively searching for future speakers. If you are in Boston on the first Tuesday of the month, are a principal in digital commerce, and would like to make a presentation to the Society, please send e-mail to the DCSB Program Committee, care of Robert Hettinga, . For more information about the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, send "info dcsb" in the body of a message to . If you want to subscribe to the DCSB e-mail list, send "subscribe dcsb" in the body of a message to . We look forward to seeing you there! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0 iQEVAwUBO3wlgcUCGwxmWcHhAQHndgf9EilyGjWc0lcZBNojVxFaSMuDd0GIfahT xdukiqmeZ74RVcRtLsHnAIgyvG4uvqvDn5A96SGI4tI0JE3PIyP1VLWFewNLtcfh l6QAeDo6EMFzWEbgNFSaTF9htVJSrrXcBTCf3WkGBenD3ghPM5dPaRiRf/qwmbya phCZDe+0HiOF+EVn4a5jKoPiZr+krU+SpvnYO9TaatD3FLt9I3DWjAy+yDJSEI2J G/E4VMrYFpU1lwZl7QvQFXl6zGE7UE5YthMVkdKiUBGAWPvRfN5tN+btL5mD53ST zzIaqyWky+WkZ+GIGe4Z/aWMJr4mmbzCPN6eHnJhlg0LrAiMDnRjmw== =pwM3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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' For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request at reservoir.com" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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' From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 16 16:13:24 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:13:24 -0700 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) Message-ID: <3B7C5394.D7F1A751@lsil.com> Jim Choate wrote : >On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show >> trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with >> lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from >> Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court >> records. > >Liar, check the archives. I never said anybody was dangerous. What I did >say was that I felt the C-A-C-L philosophy was dangerous. I stand by that. >I believe that were the C-A-C-L philosophy to take hold the results would >make the death counts from Nazism and Communism in this century pail in >comparison. > >As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some >money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a >lot of crap. > 1 worked for Intel 2 made some money 3 retired 4 live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns 5 and talked a lot of crap. 1-4 you have only read about, not observed 5 is a matter of opinion >Stand by that too. > I guess that I wonder why there was anything more to say than : "I only know what I've read on the net and cannot testify to its accuracy or completeness and any conclusions I've drawn from this reading would be my opinion not facts." with some "I don't recall" s thrown in where appropriate. Mike From freematt at coil.com Thu Aug 16 13:45:45 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:45:45 -0400 Subject: Surveillance by Design By Wendy Grossman Message-ID: Surveillance by Design http://www.sciam.com/2001/0901issue/0901scicit5.html WILL A NEW CYBERLAW BYPASS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? --BY WENDY M. GROSSMAN Wendy M. Grossman, who writes about cyberspace issues from London, is also on the board of Privacy International LONDON--A legislative move in Europe that would also affect the U.S. is threatening the sometimes controversial ability of Internet users to mask their real-world identities. The move, which is heavily backed by the U.S. Department of Justice, is the cybercrime treaty, designed to make life easy for law enforcement by requiring Internet service providers (ISPs) to maintain logs of users' activities for up to seven years and to keep their networks tappable. The Council of Europe, a treaty-building body, announced its support of the cybercrime effort in June. Anonymity is a two-edged sword. It does enable criminals to hide their activities. But it is also critical for legitimate citizens: whistle-blowers, political activists, those pursuing alternative lifestyles, and entrepreneurs who want to acquire technical information without tipping off their competitors. Even without the proposed legislation, anonymity is increasingly fragile on the Net. Corporations have sued for libel to force services to disclose the identities of those who posted disparaging comments about them online. Individual suits of this type are rarer, but last December, Samuel D. Graham, a former professor of urology at Emory University, won a libel judgment against a Yahoo user whose identity was released under subpoena. Services designed to give users anonymity sprung up as early as 1993, when Julf Helsingius founded Finland's anon.penet.fi, which stripped e-mail and Usenet postings of identifying information and substituted a pseudonymous ID. Users had to trust Helsingius. Many of today's services and software, such as the Dublin-based Hushmail and the Canadian company Zero Knowledge's Freedom software, keep no logs whatsoever. But if the cybercrime treaty is ratified, will they still be able to? Would they have to move beyond the reach of the law to, say, Anguilla? More than that, will the First Amendment continue to protect us if anonymity is effectively illegal everywhere else? Says Mike Godwin, perhaps the leading legal specialist in civil liberties in cyberspace: "I think it becomes a lot harder for the U.S. to maintain protection if the cybercrime treaty passes." Godwin calls the attempt to pass the cybercrime treaty "policy laundering"--a way of using international agreements to bring in legislation that would almost certainly be struck down by U.S. courts. (On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Justice explains that no supporting domestic legislation would be required.) In real-world terms, the equivalent of the treaty would be requiring valid return addresses on all postal mail, installing cameras in all phone booths and making all cash traceable. People would resist such a regime, but surveillance by design in the electronic world seems less unacceptable, perhaps because for some people e-mail still seems optional and the Internet is a mysterious, dark force that is inherently untrustworthy. Because ISPs must keep those logs and that data, your associations would become an open book. "The modern generation of traffic-analysis software not only can link to conventional police databases but can give a comprehensive picture of a person's lifestyle and communications profile," says Simon Davies, director of Privacy International. "It can automatically generate profiles of thousands of users in seconds and accurately calculate friendship trees." In the not too distant future, nearly everything that is on hard copy today will travel via e-mail and the Web, from our medical records to the music we listen to and the books we read. Whatever privacy regime we create now will almost certainly wind up controlling the bulk of our communications. Think carefully before you nod to the mantra commonly heard in Europe at the moment: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Do you really want your medical records sent on the electronic equivalent of postcards? __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- FOR ME BUT NOT FOR YOU? As counterculturalist Stewart Brand has said, anonymity can be toxic to community, because it can foster irresponsible activity and sow mistrust. But an experiment some years back on the WELL, the San Francisco--based electronic conferencing system, showed that people typically wanted anonymity for themselves--just not for others. PRECEDENTS FOR PRIVACY In the U.S., the right to be anonymous is protected under the First and Fourth amendments. According to Mike Godwin, author of Cyber Rights, two significant Supreme Court cases establish the precedents. NAACP v. Alabama The 1958 ruling upheld the NAACP's refusal to disclose its membership lists on the grounds that this type of privacy is part of the right to freedom of assembly. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission The 1995 ruling struck down a requirement, instituted to control campaign spending, that political pamphlets include the name and address of their issuer. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 14:57:03 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:57:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Mostly agreed, though I still tend to think that there is a gray area where > we might argue about the Framers' intent. Where? What in the 1st do you interpret as a gray area? -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 14:58:40 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:58:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Inferno: Fw: MySQL.org's position (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Widenius" To: "Philippe Paravicini" Cc: "MySQL" ; Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:15 PM Subject: MySQL.org's position > > Hi! > > Thanks Philippe for forwarding this to us: > > >>>>> "P" == Philippe Paravicini writes: > > P> mySql.org's position (whomever they are) > P> *** > P> Dear Philippe: > > P> mySQL.org is a not for profit organization dedicated to promoting > P> and further enhancing the mySQL database engine. Like all open > P> source projects we welcome community input to help enhance the > P> product. > > P> The MySQL AB company is a commercial entity that sells licensed > P> versions of the mySQL database. They can do this because they > P> own the copyright of all the source code they license and do > P> not accept community contribution unless they can obtain the > P> copyright from the contributor. Obviously you can see that > P> this goes against the spirit of Open Source development, hence > P> mySQL.org has been formed. > > P> mySQL.org is not involved in any litigation with either NuSphere > P> or MySQL AB. While it is true that NuSphere and MySQL AB are > P> involved in a legal battle over some sort of contract, we here > P> at mySQL.org have chosen not to take sides or speculate on the > P> issue. > > P> If you have questions or concerns over the NuSphere/MySQL AB > P> lawsuit (which it appear that you do), please address your > P> questions to either NuSphere or MySQL AB. > > P> Regards, > > P> Mike Furgal - mySQL.org - Where mySQL is your SQL. > > Thanks Philippe for forwarding this. > > I find Mike's position a little strange here. > > Mike Furgal is a full time employee of NuSphere Inc. As NuSphere has > violated the GPL license, he has no right to use, modify or distribute > the MySQL source code anymore. (This is straight from section 4 of > the GPL license). Mike has the full right to do modification to > Gemini, but he can't touch the MySQL code. That NuSphere did release > the source code for Gemini after we sued them for violating the GPL > license doesn't give them back the right to use MySQL under GPL. > > It's NuSphere Inc that formed mysql.org and it's NuSphere that is the > driving force behind mysql.org. To say that mysql.org is not a part > of this dispute is a strange statement. > > mysql.org is involved in litigation with MySQL AB as MySQL AB has sued > NuSphere for tradmark infringement, of which mysql.org is a part. > Even under the interim agreement we did with NuSphere, we never > granted NuSphere to use our trademark in this way. > > It's true that for changes into the core parts of the MySQL server we > require the submitter to give us a shared copyright to the code, but > this is something also other open source projects requires. For > example FSF also require the author to sign over the copyright of any > contributed code to them. > > The reason that we need to get the copyright for the parts that goes > into the core server is that to finance MySQL development we need to > be able to sell embedded MySQL servers to our commercial customers. > There is nothing strange with this and many open source companies does > the same thing. > > If NuSphere really would have thought that we are doing the wrong > thing here they would have launced Nusphere.org for this, but instead > they decided to violate our tradmark rights by launcing mysql.org. > > When it comes to NuSphere we have never required them to sign over the > Gemini code to MySQL AB, as this is not something that is in the core > MySQL server. It was also NuSphere's who decided that they didn't > want to push the Gemini code into MySQL 3.23, which we had previously > agreed upon. > > Mike also conveniently forgets in his email that it's the people > behind MySQL AB that are the creators of the MySQL code and is > driving the development of the server parts of the MySQL code. > > You can find more about this issue at: > > http://www.mysql.com/news/article-75.html > > We are constantly updating the above FAQ with new facts, to clarify > our position in this issue. > > Regards, > Monty > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Before posting, please check: > http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) > http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) > > To request this thread, e-mail > To unsubscribe, e-mail > Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php From juicy at melontraffickers.com Thu Aug 16 17:03:10 2001 From: juicy at melontraffickers.com (A. Melon) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:03:10 -0700 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter Vol. 1 No. 1 Message-ID: <1921c2752bc21b0b9f04c2ed309e9705@melontraffickers.com> Amusing, Aimee -- or is it "Amusing Aimee"? But the real discussion was about protected speech, was it not? You previously posted a piece on "842" as if that were an actual statute forbidding the "teaching" of info on explosives and bombs. Where is that law, actually? This case is about someone selling pipe bombs, something totally different in the first place -- but protected activity under the 2nd, nonetheless. And yes, we are aware that undercover LEO's often act as agent provocateur. So what's your point? We also know, from the Judy Barri case that LEO's (FBI in this case) even teach bomb making them selves, and, quite possibly, even plant bombs in the cars of citizens they have under surveillance, even try to kill them. So what's your point? bombmonger From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 15:27:18 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:27:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Zero-Knowledge Press Release] Royal Bank To Test Zero-Knowledge Systems' Internet Privacy & Sec urity Tools For Home Use (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:17:08 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: Digital Bearer Settlement List , cryptography at wasabisystems.com, dcsb at ai.mit.edu Subject: [Zero-Knowledge Press Release] Royal Bank To Test Zero-Knowledge Systems' Internet Privacy & Sec urity Tools For Home Use --- begin forwarded text From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 16 17:54:19 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:54:19 -0700 Subject: p-punks Message-ID: <3B7C6B3B.C13AF798@lsil.com> OK Links. http://aerial.evsc.virginia.edu/~jlm8h/class/quant1.html http://www.phy.duke.edu/Courses/100/lectures/Statistics/Sta.html#photon http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99525.htm From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 16:11:37 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:11:37 -0500 Subject: OPT: Slashdot | Florda County Asks Students To Crack Elections Message-ID: <3B7C5329.76F193A6@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/16/214219.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 16:21:02 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:21:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [alg] [Fwd: [PLUG] USENIX Security: SDMI Invited Talk + Panel] (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PLUG] USENIX Security: SDMI Invited Talk + Panel Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:31:48 -0700 From: Steve Beattie Reply-To: plug at pdxlinux.org To: plug at pdxlinux.org [I'm at the 2001 USENIX Security Conference in Washington DC this week. The SDMI paper that was prevented from being presented at the Information Hiding conference earlier this year under threat of a lawsuit was allowed by the RIAA/SDMI to be presented here, with an additional panel session discussing the political aspects of the situation. I took notes for the wirex employees not present, and am forwarding it to the PLUG list given that certain members were interested in the Dmitry Sklyarov case, as they're both examples of the egregiousness of the DMCA] USENIX Security: SDMI Invited Talk + Panel Note: by transmitting this summary with comments, I'm possibly in violation of the DMCA by transmitting information about copy protection circumvention measures. Both the talk and forum were excellent. Supposedly USENIX webcast it live; hopefully they'll make it available somewhere on www.usenix.org. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Technical presentation Reading between the lines: Lessons learned from the SDMI challenge Scott Craver et al SDMI Challenge overview - three weeks in sept oct 2000 - SDMI invited "hackers" to crack a number of proposed technologies - 4 watermarking - 2 authentication - cash prize offered, but under onerous (NDA) terms Just what is SDMI? - both robust and fragile watermarks Challenge terms - 3 samples provided for each technology - original sound clip a - marked sound clip a - marked sound clip b - SDMI provides "oracles" to which to submit attacked sound clip B - no description of algorithms - no access to watermark embedders - no access to watermark detectors - no details to oracle - only 3 weeks General Approach - three types - brute force - slightly "brute" attacks - reverse engineering Technologies B and C - Initial analysis reveled signals with a relatively narrowband signaling Tech a & b - A had a very slight smooth warping in time domain, +/- 0.3 ms every 3+ second - estimating and reversing warping did not defeat technology A, but the same operation defeated technology F! More A - attack: instead of removing/compressing [audio details that I'm missing] - ripples in freq imply echo hiding. Fairly complex echo hiding in this case Echo Hiding - a method of embedding data which deliberate but "inaudible"... Patent search time - Verance US patent #05940135 Echo Detection developed several techniques to estimate echo hiding - can constructively combine multiple frames - drove them to develop better methods for echo detection after the challenge Demo on BeOS of finding echoes (where they do and don't exist) They've used their research to improve data hiding and watermarking technology Technologies D & E A signature Track - TOC hashed into a playable audio track - 2532 samples 80 frequency bins = 80 bits - not a 9kbyte hash, but 80 bits - oh wait, only 16bits repeated 5 times with a constant shuffling. - at most, they gave 100 tracks with two hash collisions. - tech d did not appear to behave as documented - tech e challenge did not include any data to use to analyze Assessment - complex system with many SPOFs - appears to implement a complex usage policy - not a good way to keep "honest people honest" - basic concept is problematic - requires trusted clients in a hostile environment Conclusions - no secret CS-EE skills needed - the only dirty secret in the paper is that there are no dirty secrets - watermarking useful, just not here - overall concept is broken - security through obscurity (still) does not work! - people ignore this principal at their peril Technical questions - peter honeyman: what are the possibility of a real secure SDMI showing up? - a watermark will not work to actively enforce a usage policy - How many technologies did you actually break? - got responses from the four watermarking oracles, don't know the actual criteria of the oracles. - areas where watermarking are useful? - e.g. fragile watermarks for tamper evidence to digital photographs, robust watermarking for the duplication of currency. - john shapiro: complex means to keep "honest people honest" are more likely to fail over simple means? - agrees - what is threat model the challenge trying to echo? - ask SDMI people, not them. couldn't believe how simple the 16-bit scheme was, and had to give up assumption that sdmi people were thinking the same way the researchers were. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Panel: Peter Jaszi, washington college of law, american university Cindy Cohn, EFF Ed Felten, Princeton Peter Jaszi ----------- Basic Architecture of the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA Copyright: all about balance between rights of consumers and producers Important thing to understand: chapter 12 is NOT copyright law, it's a (dangerous) add-on to copyright law! Sec 1201 a1A - "Thou shalt not circumvent for access" - Potential for exceptions by rules made under sec 1201 a1b - in oct 2000, the LoC announced a rule limited to circumvention - obsolete techs - lists of web servers - don't apply to creation/traffic of circumvention tools sec 1201 a2: no trafficking in access tools sec 1201 b1: no trafficking in copying tools - SDMI challenge under this section - don't know the scope of these prohibitions Note that the language of sec 1201c, preserving (among other things) the "fair use" defense, applies to copyright, but not "paracopyright" (the DMCA). sec 1201d - library exemption -- completely bogus. sec 1201e - law enforcement exception - quite robust, of limited use to rest of the world sec 1201f - reverse engineering exception - narrower in scope of limitations than allowed under current case law (of copyright) sec 1201h - defeating minors privacy exception sec 1201i - personal data exception - can take advantage of it only if you make your own tools sec 1201g - encryption research exception - uncertain in scope sec 1201j - security testing research exception weakness two these sections: - both are decided upon after that fact, researchers can't know what's legal and not-legal a priori - must have consent of organization performing research on - must have "professional standing" http://www.ipclinc.org Cindy Cohn ---------- Jaszi told us everything about 1201 we need to know, except: - EFF is ground central for fighting DMCA - introduced EFF legal team (doing pro bono work) Opposition papers to DMCA are available on the EFF website. What you can do: make the general public aware of why the DMCA is bad - articulate clearly the problems - each person should find 5 non-technical people and explain to them the problems of the DMCA - prod organizations we belong to to support against the DMCA - join the EFF, "freedom doesn't just happen" Ed Felten --------- acknowledgement of the other authors Presentation of paper is important victory, but came at a major cost in effort. We can't afford do this for every research paper. Forward research in to these areas are NOT protected, and could be squashed. Questions --------- q - smb: ed, why did University presidents not stand up as strongly as they could. ed - princeton did help defend. universities are convservative organizations. q - peter honeyman: dmca seems to be encouraging, not discouraging, copying technologies. cindy - eff has thought about stating that if you want to put out anti-copying technologies, you give you copyright protection. peter - another possibility is to encoding rules of fair use in DMCA (see sec 1201k) q - what is different about today's presentation and the planned presentation, and the wired article fallout. ed - more or less the same presentation. The paper contains more content than what was in the original paper, due to information withheld out of fear DMCA. No legal fallout from the wired article. q - register journalist: press has a role to play. Why doesn't the mainstream press doesn't realize they have a stake in this, wrt press freedom? cindy - amount of press is growing, especially wrt Dmitry situation. The press is mostly concentrated in the hands of content holders. The press wants to appear non-partisan, and not take sides. Journalists did write a brief for the 2600 case. peter - journalist can print smoking gun memos (copyright the corporation) under fair use. But if the journalist has to go to someone to decrypt the same (encrypted) copyrighted documents, it is illegal under the DMCA. q - does the statute take into account dual-use technologies? peter - the statute does take it into account. It does not however give users of the technology some comfort that it cindy - DeCSS was described as for linux playback, with no positive affect. q - jon shapiro, johns hopkins university IT: how abroad is the application of the DMCA? ed - echo technology is useful in seismology, and the princeton seismologists are outraged that the DMCA will prevent the research that they will find useful. cindy - we don't know how broadly it will apply. peter - reads the language, and it's possibly very broad. q - interactions between this case and Dmitry's case cindy - as a strict legal matter, they're different legal jurisdictions, and so they're not binding wrt each other. q - what are lessons learned for university professors and univ. legal councils, dos and don'ts? ed - there's no easy answer to that question. My best advice: talk to people who've been in it before. Keep goals and values in mind when writing papers and doing research. hasn't happened enough times to draw lessons. peter - advice to (conservative) general council, stress how controversial this is. cindy - if university won't support you, there are others (inc. the eff) who will. q - john gilmore: what does the panel think of people who encourage the RIAA and others to break the copyright social contract? dan - they keep us in business breaking their stuff ed - as a scientist, it's important to understand the limitations of this technology. q - can a summary (such as this one) be considered distributed legally under the DMCA? cindy - a stump cindy question. it would be difficult for them to squash such a summary. peter - if you were to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of this paper. ed - the question "can I tell my advisor about this" sums up the problems, that people don't know what their legal limitations are. q - will widespread civil disobedience of this statute be a reality? cindy - I never advise people to violate the law. However, when a law doesn't fit what society believes is right, then legislators need to re-examine the law. peter - copyright system has function well for last couple of centuries, not because it is policed, but because there is a collective buy-in of its purposes and what it accomplishes. The DCMA has some a lot of assumptions that the content industries have about people and scientists. q - why doesn't industry want more research into this, to make the protection mechanisms stronger? ed - RIAA has a different mindset, that it's more important that people believe the technology is strong, not whether really is strong or not. q - nick verbitzky (sp?), working on a documentary: people believe that stealing music from Napster is okay because you're stealing from crooks (the record industry). Public opinion is in our favor. Why aren't consumers aware of what's going on? cindy - (girl scouts DO pay royalties for songs they sing around campfires to BMI) Because this is cutting edge stuff that the EFF deals with. -- Steve Beattie Don't trust programmers? Complete StackGuard distro at http://immunix.org/~steve/ immunix.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Support PLUG and the Open Source Community http://www.linuxfund.org/lugs/?lug=plug To unsubscribe from the PLUG list visit http://www.pdxlinux.org/mailing_list/ -- -- Michael H. Collins Admiral: Penguinista Navy International http://www.linuxlink.com Migration Free Linux Email http://www.78704.com Speech enabled Chat http://24.93.54.40 This Ain't California http://geekaustin.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: alg-unsubscribe at austinlug.org For additional commands, e-mail: alg-help at austinlug.org From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 16:24:08 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:24:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <3B7C5394.D7F1A751@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > 1-4 you have only read about, not observed Really? How do you know... > 5 is a matter of opinion Exactly! That's what they asked for, what I thought (opinion) of Tim May and several others. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Thu Aug 16 15:34:56 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:34:56 -0400 Subject: "No Thanks, I'm Just Browsing!" Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010816183411.02241320@mail.well.com> [I do not vouch for the validity of this message or the safety of this .exe file, if it even makes its way past majordomo. --Declan] >From: "Press Release" >To: >Subject: "No Thanks, I'm Just Browsing!" >Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:14:27 -0700 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >AUGUST 16, 2001 > >Contact: Fred Tuttle > >Encrypt-Now > >253.576.7222 > > > >*BROWSE WITH FOGBANK-NOW.COM* > > > >Redmond, WA Fogbank-Now.com today announced a Web-based service in >response to Internet privacy concerns. This service enables anonymous web >browsing over the Internet from the time the user logs on to the end of >their session. Subscribers do not need to purchase any software or hardware. > >Fogbank-Now is part of the family of privacy products from Internet >Encryption Service and Supply (I.E.S.S.). As a value-added service to >customers, Fogbank-Now.com has teamed up with the local Redmond-based ISP >Isomedia.com to launch its consumer privacy kit. This privacy kit includes >the web browsing product, "Fogbank", a document shredder, and links to >encryption and messaging services. The I.E.S.S. privacy kit was >distributed to 10,000 security-conscious individuals and businesses. > >www.fogbank-now.com [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of FogNowLoader.exe] From mati99 at interklub.pl Thu Aug 16 09:36:44 2001 From: mati99 at interklub.pl (Mateusz Ziolek) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:36:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: remove In-Reply-To: <200108132114.OAA10318@toad.com> Message-ID: ________________ |Pozdrawiam | |Mateusz Ziolek| |ICQ #35805536 | |______________| On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 _changeyourlife at excite.com wrote: > Removal Instructions are at the end of this letter. Thank you. > > Dear Friend, > > Would you like to make an extra $4,250 a month without selling anything > to anyone? > Wouldn't this kind of Extra Income take a lot of the pressure off of you? > > You too can start earning money from the comfort of your home as > soon as you stop dreaming about it and Take Action to make it happen! > You don't have to be a fancy salesman, you don't even have to own a > computer to be successful with our program. > We will even place the first 3 people in your downline for you to offer > you a successful start. > > All you need is a strong desire to get out of the rat race and start > earning what you are really worth and you are on your way to building > life-time residual income for you and your loved ones. > > We will only be accepting the first 27 people who respond to this email. > So reply to this email for more info today! > > For complete details about this incredible offer, please click on this > link http://dreamteam2001.nic20.com/ > > or respond to this letter with the subject line "More Info Residual Income " > and Let's get started making all your dreams come true. > > > We'll see you at the Top > Beah' and Rob Berry > > Remember, life is short so eat dessert first and never, ever > allow anyone to steal your dreams away from you. > > > > You are receiving this message because you have either subscribed to > one of my ffa-pages, newsletters or we have corresponded in the past. I > respect your privacy. > If you do not wish to receive any further messages or > updates, please respond to this e-mail with the subject line "remove" and > we will immediately remove your e-mail address from our database. > To speed up your remove request please make sure you place the word > remove in the Subject Line, not in the body of the e-mail. > Thank you. > From mati99 at interklub.pl Thu Aug 16 09:37:09 2001 From: mati99 at interklub.pl (Mateusz Ziolek) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:37:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: remove In-Reply-To: <200108140137.SAA19056@toad.com> Message-ID: ________________ |Pozdrawiam | |Mateusz Ziolek| |ICQ #35805536 | |______________| On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Doggie Leathers wrote: > ANNOUNCING THE BRAND NEW : www.DOGGIELEATHERS.com. > At Doggie Leathers, we build beautiful, unique, custom, hand tooled fine > LEATHER dog harness sets. These beautiful one of a kind LEATHER > sets are available in FOUR RICH COLORS and feature our exclusive > "Dual Backstrap/Dual Buckled" HARNESS, COLLAR, five foot LEAD, > two custom leather dog NAME TAGS (for collar & harness), all heavy > duty SOLID BRASS HARDWARE, and a beautiful FREE MATCHING > LEATHER BELT for you. Each of our harness sets is INDIVIDUALLY > HAND MADE to your dog's own measurements. No two sets are exactly > alike ! You will not find a fine leather doggie harness like this anywhere > else in the world ! > Give your dog a summer gift of beautiful, comfortable leather that will last > his life time. Please feel free to print this message for future > reference, to bookmark and contact us through our website, and to > forward this e-mail to a "doggie friend". Thank you, from > http://www.DOGGIELEATHERS.com ! > > REMEMBER, BIG SUMMER SALE & FREE SHIPPING ON ALL MAIL > ORDERS ! > > P.S. This is NOT SPAM. To be removed from our list, please reply with > "remove" in the subject field. Thanks . . . > From mati99 at interklub.pl Thu Aug 16 09:40:30 2001 From: mati99 at interklub.pl (Mateusz Ziolek) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:40:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: remove In-Reply-To: <200108132259.PAA31748@ecotone.toad.com> Message-ID: ________________ |Pozdrawiam | |Mateusz Ziolek| |ICQ #35805536 | |______________| On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, John wrote: > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Play A Joke On A Friend, Colleague, > Relative Or Even An Enemy > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Call Jokeline and you'll be in stitches! > > With our new service you're able to wind-up, > confuse and bemuse people with a choice of > hoax callers that you can transfer to your > victim on any UK landline or mobile and then > listen in to the call and hear their reaction > > Don't worry though, they won't be able to hear > you, nor tell that you made the call - try it > on a speaker phone and a group can hear > > -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- > Just use the easy to follow recipe: > -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- > > (i) choose one ripe victim > (ii) add Jokeline by dialling 0906 736 9265 > (iii) then select: > > 1 - Wind-up samples > 2 - Mr Angry > 3 - The Irate Delivery Driver > 4 - An Invite To No 10 > 5 - Suspect Package In Your Street > 6 - You're Wanted At The Police Station > 7 - The Tax Inspector > 8 - You've Got My Daughter Pregnant > > (iv) enter your victims number > (v) wait for the transfer > (vi) when they answer, prepare yourself and > > ...enjoy! > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > This has got to be the funniest > joke to play on anyone > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Please note: this service is a harmless bit of > adult fun and the recipient of such a call will > be informed it was a joke at the end of the call > > Jokeline BCM 1543 London WC1N 3XX United Kingdom > Calls are charged at �1/min at all times > Maximum call duration 5 mins, average 2 mins > Please ensure you have the permission > of the bill payer before calling > > You've received this email as you're on our > mailing list, if however you do not wish to > receive any further emails simply reply to this > email with 'remove' in the subject line and any > additional addresses to be removed in the body > From info at giganetstore.com Thu Aug 16 10:55:55 2001 From: info at giganetstore.com (info at giganetstore.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:55:55 +0100 Subject: Leiloes ao preco da Banana! Message-ID: <02a245655171081WWWSHOPENS@wwwshopens.giganetstore.com> Os leilões ao preço da Banana no Gigaleilão.com.pt Não perca estas oportunidades... Impressora Lexmark Z32 Impressora de qualidade, nova e a preço de saldo? Lexmark Z32 para imprimir com alta performance! Fecho 22/08 15:00 Base de licitação 9.500$ Aproveite agora! Impressora HP 840C+Scanner 3300 O preço mais acessível para dois artigos novos de qualidade garantida! Fecho 22/08 15:00 Base de licitação 29.500$ Perigo a Bordo Agarre-se ao seu colete salva-vidas. Estrondosa sequela do mega-sucesso SPEED! Fecho 22/08 15:00 Base de licitação 900$ Assalto Ao Aeroporto - DVD Adrenalina e Bruce Willis em imagens espectaculares num clássico inesquecível!. Fecho 22/08 15:00 Base de licitação 900$ E muito mais... em www.gigaleilao.com.pt . O novo serviço de leilões da giganetstore.com inédito e inovador no mercado online português. Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http:\\www.giganetstore.com , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços. Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list clique em Retirar Mail -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5419 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 17:24:12 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:24:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: DCSB: Arnold Reinhold; Product 'Q' and Crypto Market Failures (fwd) Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 16 19:30:32 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:30:32 -0700 Subject: Wristwatch Reviews Message-ID: <3B7C81C8.30BB9212@lsil.com> > Oh, the irony > Ain't that why someone sent it to this list? Call the seller and say "I'm a crypto-anarchist and I want the 10% discount." Just a marketing technique to make the customer feel like part of a special group. I prefer automatic watches. 200M is standard. Never been below 30M. As for the extra dials of a chronograph, give me a break. I like my TAG but it has not been completely reliable. I'm told Rolex is very reliable but they're too expensive. I know of one from 1961 that was lost waterskiing in the 70's and was found hanging off a stump when the reservior was drained in the 80's. The original owner still uses it. There's a Seiko 200m Auto watch for $195. It's a bit thicker and heavier than the TAG but I like it. Of course a sporty Timex that will survive the pool and hot tub can be had for $25. If it held your crypto key collection that would make the choice easy. M From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 17:35:37 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:35:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Physicspunks In-Reply-To: <43d78f595ae1a28c636a774d0f5b4600@paranoici.org> Message-ID: One of the ways to model a 'black body' radiator is using this technique. The point being that the energy of the photons emitted through the hole have a statistical energy distribution that matches (at least close enough for experiments) the radiation emission of a black body at a characteristic temperature. On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > The photon discussion a few weeks back got me reading about cavity > radiation. I'm puzzled. Perhaps somebody can point me in the right > direction. > > For those who don't already know, cavity radiation is a surprising > phenomenon which required quantum theory to model. Actually statistical mechanics, not quite the same thing as quantum theory. But you can't talk about QT w/o SM. > Metals radiate energy in the form of light. Each metal has a > characteristic "radiance" for each temperature, the amount of energy it > radiates. That should probably be the amount of energy it radiates at particular frequencies. > If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled to > see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than that > of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking enough, it > turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no matter what > kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive that I almost > don't believe it!) > > My book suggests that this is intuitively sound because if cavity > radiation had different values, a violation of the second > law of thermodynamics would occur. > > Set up two cavity radiators of a metal X and a different metal Y like > so: > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX YYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXX XX YY YYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXX XX YY YYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX YYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > > If X and Y have the same temperature and Y has a higher level of > cavity radiation, then X will get hotter and Y will get cooler. In > other words, you would have a perpetual motion machine. So the > radiance of each cavity must be the same. Actually not, as Y cools its emissions drop (looking at your example in reverse). At some point X becomes hotter than Y and the net travel of photons goes the other way. It's worth remembering that what is actually happening is that both bodies are emitting radiation continouly, only the statistical 'average' of the results model this 'one way' flow. Eventually they'll reach a point where the average energy emitted by one, and absorbed by the other, equals. From that point both objects will emit radiation into their surroundings and both will cool until that exchange balances. > So far so good, but this argument should also apply to surface > radiance, which we know to be different: > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > > If Y has a higher level of surface radiance than X, then one would > expect X to grow hotter, also making possible a perpetual motion > machine. > > Clearly, something went wrong somewhere. Can anybody clue me in? The flat radiation of the surface isn't the same as with the hollow spheres. For the hollow spheres the greatest part of the radiation is re-absorbed by the relevant body (and re-emitted, and re-absorbed, ...). This re-adsorption is what leads to the black body behaviour. It acts as an averaging mechanism. The plates just emit into space and the majority of radiation is lost, not reabsorbed. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 16 18:08:51 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:08:51 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Battle Tested Police Watch In-Reply-To: <200108170049.UAA07424@ns.chase-durer.com> Message-ID: Oh, the irony!!! On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, it was written: > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:46:04 -1000 (GMT) > From: <> > Reply-To: cypherpunks at ssz.com > To: cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com > Subject: CDR: Battle Tested Police Watch > > > 10% Discount and Free Shipping for all Police Employees! > > Chase-Durer's SPECIAL FORCES 1000 Swiss-Made Chronograph > Watch is shock-resistant, accurate, dives to 1,000 feet > and is great-looking. > > See it at www.chase-durer.com > > Lee Beale > CHASE-DURER, LTD. > lbeale at chase-durer.com > Tel: 310-550-7280 > Member, American Watch Guild > > > > This message is sent in compliance of the > new e-mail bill SECTION 301. Per Section 301, > Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further > transmissions to you by the sender of > this email may be stopped at no cost to you > by sending a reply to this email address > with the word "remove" in the subject line. > > > > -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From webman890_936 at email.com Thu Aug 16 20:12:26 2001 From: webman890_936 at email.com (webman890_936 at email.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:12:26 Subject: Lowest Price for a kids magazine Message-ID: <200108161920.f7GJK8x16041@rackspace> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1054 bytes Desc: not available URL: From decoy at iki.fi Thu Aug 16 10:38:18 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:38:18 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: <200108152336.f7FNamC13182@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >The First was designed to stop this kind of intrusion into personal, >political, religious, and commercial speech. Mostly agreed, though I still tend to think that there is a gray area where we might argue about the Framers' intent. Regardless of that, broad interpretation of the First is a positive thing. >> So how about the "prevailing community standard" part? > >More gnawing away at the First, of course. Sure, but what I meant is that instead of limiting the concept of obscenity to truly repulsive kinds of pornography, the Supreme Court has effectively sidestepped the issue. Obscenity is not a very well defined concept, and anti-porn crusaders are betting on stretching it to cover ordinary pornography. >Given the notion that a local community may ban certain items because >they violate the "community standards" of the community, one is left >with the inescapable conclusion that a local community could also ban >Mormonism, or Catholicism, or any religious practice they deemed to be >violative of their community standards. Not really. Most of the anti-porn crusaders base their rhetoric on some vague idea of harm caused by the material. With most religions, you cannot easily draw the conclusion that they are harmful to the community. And where some people think you can, as is the case with Satanism and the lot, one can see that the public opinion already (mistakenly) sides with regulating them. >We talk a lot here about the Constitution. Strange for two reasons: >first, this is an international list, second, many of us are not exactly >supporters of government in general. I dunno. Constitutions are meant to legislate the state where the rest of the law legislates the state's subjects. It seems just appropriate that anti-government people would concentrate on constitutional issues. >None of the proposals for "voluntary self-labelling" are actually about >any kind of voluntarism except in the Orwellian meaning of the term. Naturally, but why not embrace and extend? The fact is, one of the reasons a good part of the CDA was struck down in the SC is the existence of self-labelling technology. The next time around, it'll probably still be a good idea to have true, voluntary self-labellers around, if not else, then to show off that "self-labelling works". >As we discussed several years ago when the CDA was being debated, there >are profound problems with self-labelling. Some people will self-label >"incorrectly" for various reasons. Much debated several years ago. Yes, I've gone through the archives on that, and plenty of other sources as well. Still, most of the critique is about why self-labelling will never be perfect. It does not render the idea completely useless -- I think of labels as metadata, some of which can be useful even if not perfect for any given use, filtering or finding hardcore S&M. As for misrating, that's a problem of reputation. If you can solve it in an anonymous economy, you can certainly solve it in a non-anonymous rating context. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 18:54:25 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:54:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Physicspunks In-Reply-To: <200108070536.BAA04125@divert.sendon.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Steve Thompson wrote: > Quoting Anonymous (nobody at paranoici.org): > > If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled to > > see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than that > > of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking enough, it > > turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no matter what > > kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive that I almost > > don't believe it!) > > This is actually a phenomenal result. If one makes a large enough apparatus > so that the cavity is very, very large with a correspondingly small port is > drilled, you've then got the makings of a great beam weapon. You're missing the parameter where the walls have to be kept at a temperature T. This implies that your environment around the ball is controlled. In a lab environment you'd wrap the cavity in some sort of heater blanket. To help you get a better grasp of the scale of the effect, consider the odds of a single photon entering the cavity port from the outside. What is the odds that that photon will be re-emitted? Almost nill. It effectively absorbs radiation at all frequencies (hence the 'black' term). Now, consider the inverse, what is the odd that a photon of a given wavelength will be emitted? The odds that a perfect black body absorber would radiate a photon from inside the cavity to the outside environment is also low. So, to make a black body radiator into a beam weapon implies so much energy keeping the cavity at the temperature required that it would be simpler to use that energy directly instead of trying to create a high energy photon stream from a very(!) inefficient emission process. The Dynamics of Heat Fuchs ISBN 0-387-94603-9 -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Fri Aug 17 00:51:30 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:51:30 -1000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: References: <1921c2752bc21b0b9f04c2ed309e9705@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010816214138.00e46d90@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 08:48 PM 8/16/01, Aimee Farr wrote: >[BLR has recently been the subject of media attacks and poison pen >letters.] Let me hear you say it. Does a part of you hurt? >[Some cpunk] wrote: > >>You are familiar with the terms "FUD" and "Propaganda" aren't you, >>Aimee? Is there a real case that can be cited properly? > >Accusing me of trickery on the tribunal? Himf. See US v. EATON, >No 00-1276 (10th Cir. August 14, 2001). Skimmed it. So the account was more real than not? You are obviously willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if trickery was not a factor? >> How is discussing bomb recipes the same as discussing bomb >> deployment with stated intention to deploy? > >Never said it was. However, talking about bombs and arms trafficking >along with crypto is like turning on a "UC bugzapper." You're talking >about the courtroom. Agents make the facts. > >AGENT: "Oh, he's just talking about bomb recipes. If ONLY he would >just state his 'intention to deploy' so I could investigate and [...] >to see just what the heck he's doing over there." > >AGENT: "Oh, they are talking about bombs, again. Oh, I would I could >just make them stop! Damn this free speech stuff!" > >Bzzt. > >I am aware of the long-standing, oft-debated, legal analogy between >crypto and bombs related to the First Amendment. (Heck, it's even in >court pleadings.) AN ANALOGY. For some reason, I think crypto + bomb >talk = bad things, and it's a mischaracterization of this forum. Talking about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as doing it, no matter how "is" is defined, talking about bombs and making them is no different. Who was it? Said "I disagree with what you say but support your right to say it" or words to that effect? I take it you have no interest in dealing with this topic seriously, it's evident you are having too much fun clowning around. Reese From richard at hrc.wmin.ac.uk Thu Aug 16 13:52:03 2001 From: richard at hrc.wmin.ac.uk (richard barbrook) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:52:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: PP2P: Massively Distributed Microcrime? (edited highlights) Message-ID: PP2P: Massively Distributed Microcrime? Gartner, Inc. Strategic Planning, SPA-13-7605 N. Jones Research Note 9 July 2001 Personal peer-to-peer applications will entertain and inform individuals but pose new risks to owners of intellectual property. ...... Personal P2P (PP2P) - The Next Step. During the next decade, we will see mass adoption of personal computing devices, such as super phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), toys and e-books. ..... The opportunity and challenge arise when individuals can install personal P2P applications on their personal platforms. Not only will adjacent devices be able to communicate, but a sufficient density of PP2P devices in a region will allow devices to contact with others outside their direct networking range by using intermediate devices to forward messages, much as the Internet does today... Potential applications include: .... * Media Piracy. A P2P application running on personal devices could distribute pirated media widely and quickly in places containing a high density of potential recipients, such as schools and clubs. The music industry was scared by Napster, but at least it knew who it could sue. PP2P applications provide nobody to sue and no single point at which to intercept or prevent such activity. ..... Inhibitors will include: .... * Vendors or governments might be pressured by vested interests - such as the music industry - to apply some form of PP2P controls at the device level; however, we forecast that this will not prove successful (0.8 probability) Overall, we do not expect that such factors will prevent PP2P systems from becoming a major technical and social trend. Who will create and use PP2P applications? .... The first adopters are likely to be technically adept affluent professionals, followed by teenagers, the latter probably driven by applications such as dating, messaging and media piracy. Who wins, and who loses? The winners will include individuals, who will gain new ways to interact, share information and play games. Other winners will include organizations that can profit from communicating with groups of adjacent individuals. The losers will include organizations that might benefit from controlling, monitoring and intercepting communications - such as law enforcement agencies and owners of small to midsize units of intellectual property. The music industry, in particular, will be exposed to greater piracy risks with fewer opportunities for control. It seems likely that systems such as PP2P will make it impossible to police copying of media, forcing intellectual property owners to concentrate on encryption, rather than prevention. .... # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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 Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 16 22:05:45 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:05:45 -0700 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108170506.f7H56WC19551@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 10:38 AM, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >> Given the notion that a local community may ban certain items because >> they violate the "community standards" of the community, one is left >> with the inescapable conclusion that a local community could also ban >> Mormonism, or Catholicism, or any religious practice they deemed to be >> violative of their community standards. > > Not really. Most of the anti-porn crusaders base their rhetoric on some > vague idea of harm caused by the material. With most religions, you > cannot > easily draw the conclusion that they are harmful to the community. And > where > some people think you can, as is the case with Satanism and the lot, > one can > see that the public opinion already (mistakenly) sides with regulating > them. You're missing my general point. If you prefer that I not use "religion," I could just as easily use an example where certainly people of some community think that some otherwise-constitutional practice is "harmful." I shant spend my time here constructing examples. My point was the issue of "community standards" vs. a constitution which stipulates rights and places limits on government, not the issue of whether in fact Judaism is or is not more dangerous than "Debbie Does Dallas." (I know folks who think Judaism is in fact far worse, and who hope and pray for the day when 4 million Jews in Occupied Palestine are rounded up and liquidated. I take no position on this, except to think it deeply ironic that Jews frrom America, Ireland, Denmark, Argentina, etc. all decided to go to Palestine and kick Arabs out of land they have lived on for more than a thousand years, on the bizarre grounds that a) some desert mystic claimed that YHWH gave this piece of land to some tribe, b) that Jews in Argentina whose ancestors were mainly Spanish, European, etc. need their own space to do their thing, and c) that the "collective guilt" of Americans for somehow being mostly Aryans as Hitler was means that some "sand niggers" in Palestine should be kicked off their land in favor of some yentas from Brooklyn. It will serve the Jew right if he is again liquidated, at least the ones in Occupied Palestine.) >> We talk a lot here about the Constitution. Strange for two reasons: >> first, this is an international list, second, many of us are not >> exactly >> supporters of government in general. > > I dunno. Constitutions are meant to legislate the state where the rest > of > the law legislates the state's subjects. Not sure what you mean, but if I understand you, I strongly disagree. The U.S. Constitution is in fact a series of limitations on what government may do...including what it may due to its "subjects." The notion that the U.S. is a "majority rules" state is incorrect, at least in terms of what the Framers and the Constitution say. >> None of the proposals for "voluntary self-labelling" are actually about >> any kind of voluntarism except in the Orwellian meaning of the term. > > Naturally, but why not embrace and extend? The fact is, one of the > reasons a > good part of the CDA was struck down in the SC is the existence of > self-labelling technology. The next time around, it'll probably still > be a > good idea to have true, voluntary self-labellers around, if not else, > then > to show off that "self-labelling works". As Declan noted pithily, a slippery slope. We don't need a proposal for "voluntary self-labelling"...if it's voluntary, people can already do it. In fact, they already do. Of course, what people are now doing is not at all what the proponents of "voluntary self-labelling" apparently intend to be the voluntary labels. We all know where the slide down the slippery slope will take us. >> As we discussed several years ago when the CDA was being debated, there >> are profound problems with self-labelling. Some people will self-label >> "incorrectly" for various reasons. Much debated several years ago. > > Yes, I've gone through the archives on that, and plenty of other > sources as > well. Still, most of the critique is about why self-labelling will > never be > perfect. It does not render the idea completely useless -- I think of > labels > as metadata, some of which can be useful even if not perfect for any > given > use, filtering or finding hardcore S&M. Truly voluntary self-labelling, without imposed standards, is IPSO FACTO what we already have, right? If someone voluntary says their site is "hot" or chooses to say nothing, this is "voluntary." Right? > > As for misrating, that's a problem of reputation. If you can solve it > in an > anonymous economy, you can certainly solve it in a non-anonymous rating > context. > Actually, this is a separate topic worthy of more discussion that simply saying "you can certain solve it in a non-anonymous rating context." By the way, what does anonymous vs. non-anonymous have to do with truly voluntary self-ratings, that is, whatever anonymous or non-anonymous agents _say_? A voluntary system means an uncoerced system...this point explodes in too many obvious directions for me to even try to write about here, given the low level of interest in the discussion the two of us have been having. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 16 22:09:15 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:09:15 -0700 Subject: Physicspunks In-Reply-To: <200108070536.BAA04125@divert.sendon.net> Message-ID: <200108170509.f7H59RC19586@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 04:54 PM, Steve Thompson wrote: > Quoting Anonymous (nobody at paranoici.org): >> If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled to >> see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than that >> of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking enough, it >> turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no matter what >> kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive that I almost >> don't believe it!) > > This is actually a phenomenal result. If one makes a large enough > apparatus > so that the cavity is very, very large with a correspondingly small > port is > drilled, you've then got the makings of a great beam weapon. No you don't. Read up on the Stefan-Boltzmann laws and figure out what frequencies (energies) a black body radiator emits. Get real. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 16 22:38:31 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:38:31 -0700 Subject: Physicspunks In-Reply-To: <43d78f595ae1a28c636a774d0f5b4600@paranoici.org> Message-ID: <200108170540.f7H5e9C19690@slack.lne.com> (The physics cited by Anonymous is hand-waving. I regret spending even 10 minutes composing this reply. First, the physics is naive. Second, this has nothing to do with any conceivable topic of interest. Third, I expect Choate will be jumping in with his Choate Prime version of physics.) On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 05:03 PM, Anonymous wrote: > The photon discussion a few weeks back got me reading about cavity > radiation. I'm puzzled. Perhaps somebody can point me in the right > direction. > > For those who don't already know, cavity radiation is a surprising > phenomenon which required quantum theory to model. Metals radiate > energy in the form of light. Each metal has a characteristic > "radiance" for each temperature, the amount of energy it radiates. Planck solved the black body radiation problem by figuring out that energy levels are quantized (heading off the "ultraviolet catastrophe," which we knew wasn't happening, but not why it wasn't). > > If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled to > see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than that > of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking enough, it > turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no matter what > kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive that I almost > don't believe it!) It is not correct to say the radiance is either higher or lower than some other material: the radiance approximates that of a perfect black body. These are not mystical objects. I used them in my lab a few decades ago. "Integrating spheres" is the lab supply store name. Looked at from another point of view, a hollowed-out sphere with a small hole. Light entering the sphere bounces around and is absorbed, reflected, bounced around, etc., until it "thermalizes." The integrating sphere thus "integrates" the light hitting the hole. (A more mundane example is the ordinary house with a glass window. Nearly all of the light passing through a house window is "thermalized.") Take the above physics and play it BACKWARDS IN TIME: the light exiting the hole in an integrating sphere is the result only of the TEMPERATURE of the sphere. The sphere behaves pretty much like a perfect black body radiator. Geometry is the key. Nothing mystical at all. > So far so good, but this argument should also apply to surface > radiance, which we know to be different: > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY > > If Y has a higher level of surface radiance than X, then one would > expect X to grow hotter, also making possible a perpetual motion > machine. > > Clearly, something went wrong somewhere. Can anybody clue me in? The "perpetual motion" part is a non sequitor. There are many cases where a material of higher radiance, e.g. the surface of the earth, is "looking at" (in the sense of the drawing above) a material or thing of lower radiance, e.g., deep space. And guess what: the earth radiates more energy toward deep space than deep space radiates toward the earth. This is one reason deserts get so cold so fast at night. Absent other sources of energy input (heating by the sun, geological energy, etc.), the earth would indeed eventually reach thermal equlibrium with deep space. So? Nothing surprising, and no perpetual motion. You need to spend about an hour reading up on some basic thermodynamics, especially about why all objects in a furnace (a good approximation to the cavity radiator) look to be the same "color" no matter their composition. Think in terms of the time-reversed model, with light going into a furnace and bouncing around, if it helps you to see the intuitive reason for the equilibrium solution. Why would someone ask for help on a physics problem using anonymous methods? I suspect a troll. --Tim May From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 20:55:51 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:55:51 -0500 Subject: OPT: CNN.com - Researchers: PDAs prone to hacker attacks - August 16, 2001 Message-ID: <3B7C95C7.F68A87BC@ssz.com> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/08/16/security.palm.reut/index.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 16 23:08:27 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:08:27 -0700 Subject: Physicspunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108170608.f7H68eC19859@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 05:35 PM, Jim Choate wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > >> The photon discussion a few weeks back got me reading about cavity >> radiation. I'm puzzled. Perhaps somebody can point me in the right >> direction. >> >> For those who don't already know, cavity radiation is a surprising >> phenomenon which required quantum theory to model. > > Actually statistical mechanics, not quite the same thing as quantum > theory. But you can't talk about QT w/o SM. No, Anonymous was perfectly correct in saying quanta were required to understand black body radiation. Planck got the Nobel Prize for his work in 1899-1900 on exactly the problem of cavity radiators (furnaces, integrating spheres, black body radiators). --Tim May From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 16 23:21:27 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:21:27 -0700 Subject: Digression In-Reply-To: <20010816201724.53844.qmail@web13202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3B7C5577.5713.1B57BCE@localhost> -- On 16 Aug 2001, at 13:17, Morlock Elloi wrote: > Sorry to bother the audience with purely crypto issues, I just wonder if anyone > else evaluated this Ferguson's paper on apparent simplicity and therefore > insecurity of Rijndael: > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~vorpal/pubs/rdalgeq.html "and therefore insecurity" Does not follow. I would argue that rather the simpler, the stronger. A simple structure, if it can be broken, would have simple breaks. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG S1hKxB2ZdiFQfFn/0TRow7KAF/Yu/430mi64oJi/ 4ThCd/XGQLmoLjr/QPNOba1CIvb3yflWK2CXzPoZz From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 16 23:32:14 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:32:14 -0700 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <3B7C5394.D7F1A751@lsil.com> Message-ID: <200108170632.f7H6WXC19975@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 04:13 PM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > I guess that I wonder why there was anything more to say than : > > "I only know what I've read on the net and cannot testify to its > accuracy or completeness and any conclusions I've drawn from this > reading would be my opinion not facts." > > with some "I don't recall" s thrown in where appropriate. > Gary Condit was not required to talk to either the police or the FBI, absent a subpoena to testify before a grand jury or in an actual trial. And even then he may have certain Fifth Amendment protections (less in front of a grand jury, apparently). I cite Condit becuase it reminds us that "talking to the police" is not required. Not only are there issues of self-incrimination, but also issues of "takings" (compelling an expert to talk without some agreed-upon contract and rate is of course compelling him to donate his time; and we are all experts, of course). There is no obligation to give interviews with cops or investigators, either before or after an arrest. Absent the appropriate subpoenas and court-ordered testimony, modulo the Fifth Amendment. There's a strange bit of fluff floating around on the t.v. talk shows, based on my recent viewings, along the lines of "Once you've been read your rights, you don't have to talk to the police." Does this mean that one is required to talk to the police, to give potentially incriminating statements, to donate one's time, _before_ one's Miranda rights have been read? Nope, not so. One may remain silent long before an arrest and formal Mirandizing. While telling a cop to "Fuck off" may not be the most tactful thing to say, and may even violate some laws about obscene speech to public officials, saying "I have nothing to say" or "No comment" is not prosecutable...unless the speech has been compelled (grand jury, petit jury/trial) and the necessary general or use immunities granted. Choate was under no obligation to pontificate to cops about whether someone like me plans to do something. He chose to cooperate with the Feds and speculated freely on what he thought I would do. He's a rodent. --Tim May From stevet at sendon.net Thu Aug 16 16:54:13 2001 From: stevet at sendon.net (Steve Thompson) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:54:13 +0000 Subject: Physicspunks References: <43d78f595ae1a28c636a774d0f5b4600@paranoici.org> Message-ID: <200108070536.BAA04125@divert.sendon.net> Quoting Anonymous (nobody at paranoici.org): > If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled to > see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than that > of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking enough, it > turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no matter what > kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive that I almost > don't believe it!) This is actually a phenomenal result. If one makes a large enough apparatus so that the cavity is very, very large with a correspondingly small port is drilled, you've then got the makings of a great beam weapon. However, aiming a multi-cubic parsec block of metal may limit effectiveness somewhat. Regards, Steve -- ``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no philosophy of it. The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology.... Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry. If it attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.'' -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament" From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 16 21:58:46 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:58:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <20010817000000.A20479@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Jim Choate wrote : > >As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some > >money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a > >lot of crap. > > When even tell them that? I've answered this question before. I'm not a C-A-C-L. I don't see them as the 'enemy'. If CJ had really been running around putting bombs in courthouses (in Canada or not) or was a credible threat to anybody (whether they are agents are not is irrelelvant, and the distinction is really unconstitutional) then I WANT him in jail and will happily help put him there. I met CJ in person, under some rather strange cirumstances. He also went out of his way to involve me (eg the bomb description posts to the list he had on his person when he was captured) and the Austin Cypherpunks. I will say this, the AC were not impressed by him in general and the general consensus was he was at least a couple bricks short. If you want information, you sometimes have to give some. I operate a remailer for the express purpose of discussing alternatives to the current approaches to our society. Part of that is the willingness to involve myself with people, even if the odds of success are very low. I asked myself how credible I'd be if I ran around deciding I'd talk to this group but not that group. I felt, not very. Everything I said came from voluntary and reasonably public comments made by the appropriate parties over several years of interaction (I joined the original list in late '92 or early '93). Nothing I said can't be backed up by reams of posts. Finally, I'm more worried about my butt than yours or Timmy's. It was a personal judgement call, one that I believe I resolved equitably. If you don't agree, tough. It wasn't your call. (the fact that you want respect for your actions but can't seem to give it to others is only another indication of your real world view) Basically, I don't see it in the same immature black/white:us/them view that you and your cronnies hold. It ain't a football game, goober. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Thu Aug 16 21:00:00 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:00:00 -0400 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <3B7C5394.D7F1A751@lsil.com>; from mmotyka@lsil.com on Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 04:13:24PM -0700 References: <3B7C5394.D7F1A751@lsil.com> Message-ID: <20010817000000.A20479@cluebot.com> Jim Choate wrote : >As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some >money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a >lot of crap. When even tell them that? I know that it's easier not to talk to the Feds when you've got a team of lawyers on your side, and I don't really (for once) mean to pick on Jim, but I'm not sure what such polite chitchat accomplishes. What I can imagine is how words -- "bunch of guns" -- can be twisted and used against Tim or other cypherpunks. -Declan From offer at pageseeker.com Fri Aug 17 00:45:28 2001 From: offer at pageseeker.com (graham) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:45:28 -0700 Subject: 2 cents per search Message-ID: <000000000000.f7H0xs030BqB@localhost> PageSeeker has an excellent opportunity to for you to add functionality to your website, while earning easy money. All you have to do is place a PageSeeker Search Box on your website, and for every search made, you will receive 2 cents (USD) it’s that simple! We have both branded and non-branded search consoles for you to choose from. Payments will be sent out monthly, by check. Click below to sign up NOW! http://www.pageseeker.com/businesscenter/paypersearch.html Yours Sincerely, Graham Latter Manager PageSeeker.com PH: (Int) + 61 7 3007 0070 FAX: (Int) + 61 7 3007 0075 EMAIL: manager at pageseeker.com URL: http://www.pageseeker.com If you do not wish to receive further promotional emails from our organization please reply to this message with 'remove' in the subject. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Thu Aug 16 23:48:34 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:48:34 -0500 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <1921c2752bc21b0b9f04c2ed309e9705@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: [BLR has recently been the subject of media attacks and poison pen letters.] "Bombmonger" wrote: > Amusing, Aimee -- or is it "Amusing Aimee"? But the real discussion > was about protected speech, was it not? You previously posted a piece on > "842" as if that were an actual statute forbidding the "teaching" of info > on explosives and bombs. Where is that law, actually? See United States Code, Title 18, Ch. 40, Section 842. Also see Section 844. Lookee here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/842.html United States v. Progressive, 467 F.Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979), was a long time ago. I recognize that successful prosecution is probably a long-shot. > This case is about someone selling pipe bombs, something totally > different in the first place -- but protected activity under the 2nd, > nonetheless. And yes, we are aware that undercover LEO's often act as > agent provocateur. So what's your point? We also know, from the Judy > Barri case that LEO's (FBI in this case) even teach bomb making them > selves, and, quite possibly, even plant bombs in the cars of citizens > they have under surveillance, even try to kill them. So what's your > point? > > bombmonger My point is that I'm sitting here talking to somebody named "bombmonger." Go back to playing with sparklers and blowing things up in the microwave. If you have any real bombs, I bet the ATF has a toll-free help-line, offering friendly and immediate assistance to assist you through the "bomb registration process." ...."quite possibly" ...FBI "Black Ops Blow-Em-Up" teams? Uh-uhm. If had to guess, I would bet that explosives take a lot of paperwork. Bombs are not efficient investigative tools for law enforcement. They blow up the evidence and the criminal. It's hard to run surveillance on a blown-up target. That would be LEA "disintermediation." They also make a lot of noise. [Some cpunk] wrote: > >US v. "DUMB BOMB GUY," No 5555 (...in this country, recently.) [*FN1] > > > > >(1) These clubs describe themselves as outlaw motorcycle clubs because > >they "live outside the law." > > You are familiar with the terms "FUD" and "Propaganda" aren't you, Aimee? > Is there a real case that can be cited properly? Accusing me of trickery on the tribunal? Himf. See US v. EATON, No 00-1276 (10th Cir. August 14, 2001). > How is discussing bomb recipes the same as discussing bomb deployment > with stated intention to deploy? Never said it was. However, talking about bombs and arms trafficking along with crypto is like turning on a "UC bugzapper." You're talking about the courtroom. Agents make the facts. AGENT: "Oh, he's just talking about bomb recipes. If ONLY he would just state his 'intention to deploy' so I could investigate and [...] to see just what the heck he's doing over there." AGENT: "Oh, they are talking about bombs, again. Oh, I would I could just make them stop! Damn this free speech stuff!" Bzzt. I am aware of the long-standing, oft-debated, legal analogy between crypto and bombs related to the First Amendment. (Heck, it's even in court pleadings.) AN ANALOGY. For some reason, I think crypto + bomb talk = bad things, and it's a mischaracterization of this forum. ~Aimee From nobody at paranoici.org Thu Aug 16 17:03:48 2001 From: nobody at paranoici.org (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:03:48 +0200 Subject: Physicspunks Message-ID: <43d78f595ae1a28c636a774d0f5b4600@paranoici.org> The photon discussion a few weeks back got me reading about cavity radiation. I'm puzzled. Perhaps somebody can point me in the right direction. For those who don't already know, cavity radiation is a surprising phenomenon which required quantum theory to model. Metals radiate energy in the form of light. Each metal has a characteristic "radiance" for each temperature, the amount of energy it radiates. If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled to see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than that of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking enough, it turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no matter what kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive that I almost don't believe it!) My book suggests that this is intuitively sound because if cavity radiation had different values, a violation of the second law of thermodynamics would occur. Set up two cavity radiators of a metal X and a different metal Y like so: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX YYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXX XX YY YYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXX XX YY YYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX YYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY If X and Y have the same temperature and Y has a higher level of cavity radiation, then X will get hotter and Y will get cooler. In other words, you would have a perpetual motion machine. So the radiance of each cavity must be the same. So far so good, but this argument should also apply to surface radiance, which we know to be different: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY If Y has a higher level of surface radiance than X, then one would expect X to grow hotter, also making possible a perpetual motion machine. Clearly, something went wrong somewhere. Can anybody clue me in? From unsubs-3rd_member_maila-cypherpunks.-toad.com at u.nbci.com Thu Aug 16 21:22:34 2001 From: unsubs-3rd_member_maila-cypherpunks.-toad.com at u.nbci.com (NBCi) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 04:22:34 GMT Subject: Information for NBCi members about www.nbci.com Message-ID: You have received this e-mail because our records indicate that you are a registered user of www.nbci.com. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide you with an update about upcoming changes. A. In the coming days, the NBCi site will have a new look. We hope you like the updated styling and the increased NBC content. B. In conjunction with the launch of the new design, the following services will be discontinued: - NBC TV Clubs - The NBCi Stock Portfolio (but please check out the one offered on www.CNBC.com) C. We expect to provide personalization features on the new site. However, while we update our system, your current NBCi member name and password will not work. We expect to have the system updated in the coming weeks. If you would like to use the personalization features right away, then you can sign up for a new member name and password . If you would like to continue using your current member name and password, then please try to sign in a few weeks after the new design launches. NOTE: Your existing member name and password will continue to work for your e-mail account, even during the transition period. To access your e-mail account, you may use links on the NBCi site OR go directly to www.email.com and sign in. D. Please note that your feedback is important and many e-mails are reviewed by NBC producers and management; however personal responses to e-mails will no longer be provided. To submit feedback about NBC Television shows, please send an e-mail to: nbcshows at nbc.com And here are a few quick reminders from previous e-mails: 1. The e-mail account on NBCi is offered through mail.com, which was recently bought by EasyLink. As such, EasyLink owns the code, servers, and support for the e-mail application. To access your e-mail account, you may use links on the NBCi site OR go directly to www.email.com and sign in. If you have specific questions about your e-mail account, contact mail.com (a separate company) directly support at email.com 2. Make sure you have a backup of all data stored on www.nbci.com (such as your web site, shared files, address books, and portfolio), as well as on Xoom.com and SNAP.com. -For a new "sharehouse" account visit: http://plus.xdrive.com/target.html?path=signup.html,aff=nbci061301 -For a new web site account visit: http://homesteadannouncements.homestead.com/NBCI.html -For a new portfolio visit: http://www.cnbc.com 3. The following services are no longer provided (and it is no longer possible to recover data stored in any of these services): - Sharehouse - Clubs - Calendar - Clipart - Sweepstakes Note: If you use the NBCi site through one of our ISP distribution partners, such as PacBell, Verizon or Prodigy, please contact your ISP directly for additional information. General Disclaimer Please note that pursuant to our terms of service (which can be accessed from www.nbci.com), NBCi has the right to unilaterally stop all service and functionality to our web sites; however, we understand the importance of your information and desire to provide you with sufficient notice to allow you to act accordingly. Nothing contained in this mailing is intended to or shall supercede our terms of service. You can view our full terms of service if you have any questions at: http://www.nbci.com/LMOID/resource/0,566,home-764,00.html?fd.ft.ts.h.s-764. For risks about NBCi's business, see its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000, as well as its other SEC filings. This email was sent to: cypherpunks at toad.com From stevet at sendon.net Thu Aug 16 22:08:30 2001 From: stevet at sendon.net (Steve Thompson) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 05:08:30 +0000 Subject: Physicspunks References: <200108070536.BAA04125@divert.sendon.net> <200108170509.f7H59RC19586@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <200108170606.CAA15855@divert.sendon.net> Quoting Tim May (tcmay at got.net): > Get real. You think I'm not being real? Puhleeze. Regards, Steve -- ``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no philosophy of it. The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology.... Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry. If it attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.'' -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament" From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 17 04:03:24 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 06:03:24 -0500 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010816214138.00e46d90@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: Reese: > >[Some cpunk] wrote: > > > >>You are familiar with the terms "FUD" and "Propaganda" aren't you, > >>Aimee? Is there a real case that can be cited properly? > > > >Accusing me of trickery on the tribunal? Himf. See US v. EATON, > >No 00-1276 (10th Cir. August 14, 2001). > > Skimmed it. So the account was more real than not? Verbatim. > You are obviously > willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was > served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if > trickery was not a factor? No, Reese, I didn't want to expose an agent to Googling. > Talking about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as > doing it, no matter how "is" is defined, talking about bombs and making > them is no different. Who was it? Said "I disagree with what you say > but support your right to say it" or words to that effect? A modern version: "I disagree with bomb recipes, but support your right to provide bomb recipes, as long as I am not standing next to you, or associated with you in any way." Things work differently now, see? > I take it you have no interest in dealing with this topic seriously, > it's evident you are having too much fun clowning around. :) ~Aimee From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Fri Aug 17 09:22:13 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 06:22:13 -1000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010816214138.00e46d90@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 01:03 AM 8/17/01, Aimee Farr wrote: >> You are obviously >> willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was >> served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if >> trickery was not a factor? > >No, Reese, I didn't want to expose an agent to Googling. Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info sealed if there was a problem with releasing it? >> Talking about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as >> doing it, no matter how "is" is defined, talking about bombs and making >> them is no different. Who was it? Said "I disagree with what you say >> but support your right to say it" or words to that effect? > >A modern version: "I disagree with bomb recipes, but support your right to >provide bomb recipes, as long as I am not standing next to you, or >associated with you in any way." Things work differently now, see? No, I don't *see*. There is no reason why they should work differently, the relevant passages of the Constitution have not changed - the activism in the courtrooms is telling though. >> I take it you have no interest in dealing with this topic seriously, >> it's evident you are having too much fun clowning around. > >:) > >~Aimee From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 17 05:20:30 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:20:30 -0500 Subject: The Register - Music biz patents anti-rip encryption technology Message-ID: <3B7D0C0E.5BD120B0@ssz.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/21092.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 17 05:23:25 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:23:25 -0500 Subject: Riots at G-8 meeting spark special forces -- The Washington Times Message-ID: <3B7D0CBD.E3ACF54A@ssz.com> http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20010817-11608154.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From xeni at xeni.net Fri Aug 17 07:35:43 2001 From: xeni at xeni.net (Xeni Jardin) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:35:43 -0700 Subject: No subject Message-ID: unsubscribe xeni at xeni.net From xeni at xeni.net Fri Aug 17 07:35:58 2001 From: xeni at xeni.net (Xeni Jardin) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:35:58 -0700 Subject: No subject Message-ID: unsubscribe xeni at xeni.net From CORREIO/SANEPAR at sanepar.com.br Fri Aug 17 04:37:38 2001 From: CORREIO/SANEPAR at sanepar.com.br (CORREIO/SANEPAR at sanepar.com.br) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:37:38 -0300 Subject: Security Alert - ScanMail for Lotus Notes Message-ID: ScanMail detectou vírus durante o rastreamento automatico de e-mail. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 17 06:49:04 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:49:04 -0500 Subject: Surreptitious polygraph surveillance. Message-ID: In the field. Courtesy of the "I-have-nothing-to-hide" people.... "Go Ahead, Try to Lie" Discover (07/01); Wright, Karen The U.S. Department of Defense is attempting to create a better polygraph machine. The polygraph machine, which was first introduced almost 100 years ago, is routinely used to screen thousands of job applicants and government employees every year, as well as in criminal investigations. In recent times, however, the device's reputation has suffered from claims that its use violates people's privacy and that it is not always reliable. Over the last 24 months, the U.S. Department of Defense has increased research on alternative technologies through studies regulated by its Fort Jackson, S.C.-based Polygraph Institute. Andrew Ryan, chief of research at the institute, is working with the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory to create software that can detect minor variations in biofeedback to tell if someone is lying. The institute is also looking into technologies that could augment polygraph testing with techniques that are less invasive. The U.S. Customs service has been testing a remote-sensing device for the capture of smugglers, which measures incriminating inflections, vibrations, and tones in a person's voice. Muscle tremors might also provide indications that someone is lying, and these can be detected using a body-scanning laser, which also determines respiration and heart rates. The level of blood flow, which can be configured by measuring skin-surface temperature, might also change when someone is lying: a recent pilot study using thermal imaging cameras was able to detect a person lying 78 percent of the time. (www.discover.com/) --- Source: NLECTC Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology News Summary should be cited as the source of the information. Copyright 2001, Information Inc., Bethesda, MD. --- If that ever becomes spousal-dateware, I bet they change their mind THEN. Next, they will figure out a way to do that with keystroke dynamics (and keystroke dynamic biometrics) and stop people lying on the Internet. The death of us all! ~Aimee See Long Beach City Employees Ass'n v. City of Long Beach, 41 Cal.3d 937, 719 P.2d 660 (1986), for a good explanation of why polygraphs are considered more intrusive than a written or verbal interrogation. From nobody at remailer.privacy.at Thu Aug 16 23:49:06 2001 From: nobody at remailer.privacy.at (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:49:06 +0200 Subject: Physicspunks Message-ID: Steve Thompson wrote: >Quoting Anonymous (nobody at paranoici.org): >> If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled >> to see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than >> that of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking >> enough, it turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no >> matter what kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive >> that I almost don't believe it!) > > This is actually a phenomenal result. If one makes a large enough > apparatus so that the cavity is very, very large with a > correspondingly small port is drilled, you've then got the makings > of a great beam weapon. The radiance of the cavity is only a function of the temperature. From schear at lvcm.com Fri Aug 17 09:07:22 2001 From: schear at lvcm.com (Steve Schear) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:07:22 -0700 Subject: Physicspunks In-Reply-To: <200108170540.f7H5e9C19690@slack.lne.com> References: <43d78f595ae1a28c636a774d0f5b4600@paranoici.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010816225251.04827df0@pop3.lvcm.com> At 10:38 PM 8/16/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >These are not mystical objects. I used them in my lab a few decades ago. >"Integrating spheres" is the lab supply store name. Looked at from >another point of view, a hollowed-out sphere with a small hole. Light >entering the sphere bounces around and is absorbed, reflected, bounced >around, etc., until it "thermalizes." The integrating sphere thus >"integrates" the light hitting the hole. One can perform some interesting experiments using an evacuated "integrating" sphere. Instead of a pinhead sized opening use something a bit larger with a quartz window. Suspend a small high temperature refractory ball in the center of the sphere (tungsten) and line the interior of the sphere with PV "cells" (e.g., overlapping of standard rectangular cells) overcoated to efficiently reflect frequencies above or below the band gap. Sunlight from a concentrator is focused on the sphere bringing it to incandescence. The combination of the ball and the reflective overcoat functions to "remix" the solar energy limiting the "leakage" of photons not in the bandpass from exiting the system. The vacuum prevents convective coupling of the ball and the cells although cooling the exterior of the sphere with a water jacket may be advised. System conversion efficiency can exceed 35%. steve From secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net Fri Aug 17 03:28:41 2001 From: secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net (Secret Squirrel) Date: 17 Aug 2001 10:28:41 -0000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter Vol. 1 No. 1 Message-ID: <20010817102841.29385.qmail@nym.alias.net> Aimee: > > [Since some remailer-idiots want to talk about bombs in here and grossly > mischaracterize an entire forum.] Amusing, Aimee -- or is it "Amusing Aimee"? But the real discussion was about protected speech, was it not? You previously posted a piece on "842" as if that were an actual statute forbidding the "teaching" of info on explosives and bombs. Where is that law, actually? This case is about someone selling pipe bombs, something totally different in the first place -- but protected activity under the 2nd, nonetheless. And yes, we are aware that undercover LEO's often act as agent provocateur. So what's your point? We also know, from the Judy Barri case that LEO's (FBI in this case) even teach bomb making them selves, and, quite possibly, even plant bombs in the cars of citizens they have under surveillance, even try to kill them. So what's your point? bombmonger From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 17 11:15:22 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:15:22 -0700 Subject: Silver pipes and silver nodes In-Reply-To: <20010817174049.20195.qmail@nym.alias.net> Message-ID: <200108171815.f7HIFlf01800@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 17, 2001, at 10:40 AM, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: >> Even without the proposed legislation, anonymity is increasingly >> fragile on >> the Net. Corporations have sued for libel to force services to >> disclose the >> identities of those who posted disparaging comments about them online. >> Individual suits of this type are rarer, but last December, Samuel D. >> Graham, a former professor of urology at Emory University, won a libel >> judgment against a Yahoo user whose identity was released under >> subpoena. > > Actually the tide is turning on this issue. There have been two > high-profile cases this year in which suits designed to reveal the > identities of pseudonymous posters have failed. Importantly--and glossed over in the Grossman article--there is a huge difference between "being forced to reveal something you know" and "being required to know." For example, consider a financial transaction, a purchase of something. If Gary the Grocer has a record kept of a delivery to Mannie the Mobster, and the system learns about it, Gary can be ordered to turn over his records. However, he cannot be compelled to require I.D. from Mannie the Mobster. Cash and unrecorded transactions are still fully legal. (And should remain so, so long as the Constitution is not fully shreddded.) (For any quibblers, there are very, very limited cases where records of purchases are required, e.g., guns. There are other limited cases where a proof of age credential (but not identity) is supposed to be presented, e.g., alcohol and cigarettes.) A remailer cannot be compelled to keep records by any constitutional laws I have heard of. Furthermore, even if some law is passed requiring an ISP to "retain logs for 7 years," this will hardly impinge on properly-designed remailers. Easily-designed remailers, in fact. My ISP can keep all the logs he wants to, including records of encypted mail to and from my dial-up account. However, once I have received encrypted mail, gotten around to collecting and decrypting them, then mailing them back out, the logs at the ISP tell a snoop nothing of interest. (Remember, remailers are _mailers_, operating in prinicple at the POP level. That some remailers are acting at the "packet" level (loosely-speaking) is not central to their function. Especially given the usual (and desireable) delays associated with pooling of N messages.) So, stopping remailers requires a LOT more than requiring Earthlink to keep terabytes of data around for years and years. Many years ago I referred to their being two critical ingredients: -- silver pipes -- silver nodes Silver nodes are perfectly reflective nodes which no amount of external illumination/scrutiny can penetrate. The perfect shield, a la the "bobbles" of Vernor Vinge's "Peace War" and "Marooned in Realtime" novels. Security of a PC, and local file encryption, approximates this. Silver pipes are the various links between nodes, with encrypted packets. SWAN is one example, SSL another. Sniffers and snoopers can see that the pipe exists, but cannot see "inside" it, hence the "silver" appelation. So what happens when a large number of silver nodes are connected with a large number of silver pipes? And so _what_ if some of the nodes (ISPs, but not a hundred million end-user machines) are "required by a new world order treaty" to retain their logs for 7 years? And the point about a hundred million end-user machines is an important one. Many of you already are running your own servers...you are your own ISPs. This trend will increase. What of machines sitting in large warehouses of machines (like www.rackspace.com)? What of LANs and WANs used as remailers? Packets enter the building of Digital Datawhack, travel over a plethora of CAT5 and Firewire and 802.11b links, get mixed around in the usual ways, and then eventually exit the Digital Datawhack building...or one down the street, across town, etc....and re-enter the "more public" networks. What, exactly, would it mean to "require logs of all packets"? A hopeless task. The "degrees of freedom" are too large, even now. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 17 09:35:46 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:35:46 -0500 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: Reese: > >> You are obviously > >> willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was > >> served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if > >> trickery was not a factor? > > > >No, Reese, I didn't want to expose an agent to Googling. > > Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info sealed > if there was a problem with releasing it? There probably wasn't...agents go on the record. Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them. > >> Talking about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as > >> doing it, no matter how "is" is defined, talking about bombs > and making > >> them is no different. Who was it? Said "I disagree with what you say > >> but support your right to say it" or words to that effect? > > > >A modern version: "I disagree with bomb recipes, but support > your right to > >provide bomb recipes, as long as I am not standing next to you, or > >associated with you in any way." Things work differently now, see? > > No, I don't *see*. There is no reason why they should work differently, > the relevant passages of the Constitution have not changed - the activism > in the courtrooms is telling though. I was being sarcastic. Do you think you need probable cause for investigation? ~Aimee From Kearns.&.Associates at mail.netunlimited.net Fri Aug 17 09:47:14 2001 From: Kearns.&.Associates at mail.netunlimited.net (Kearns.&.Associates at mail.netunlimited.net) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:47:14 -0400 Subject: FREE REPORT Message-ID: <200108171647.MAA15946@mail.netunlimited.net> FREE REPORT Amazingly Powerful Advertising, Marketing, Direct Marketing, Customer/Client Attraction and Persuasion Strategies Revealed............................................. The 6 KEY Marketing Componets That NO Business Owner, Corporate CEO, Sales Manager, Business to Business Marketer, Real Estate Professional, Retailer, Sales Professional, Doctor, Accountant, Financial Planner, or Professionals Involved in "Practice Building" Should Be Without. To Receive The FREE REPORT, Simply Return This Message With the Words "FREE REPORT" Written in The Subject Box. -You are receiving this message, as you were referred to our company as a person interested in business and marketing strategies. If you are receiving this in error, please do not reply, and accept our apologies. This IS a one time mailing. From Kearns.&.Associates at mail.netunlimited.net Fri Aug 17 09:47:16 2001 From: Kearns.&.Associates at mail.netunlimited.net (Kearns.&.Associates at mail.netunlimited.net) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:47:16 -0400 Subject: FREE REPORT Message-ID: <200108171647.MAA15959@mail.netunlimited.net> FREE REPORT Amazingly Powerful Advertising, Marketing, Direct Marketing, Customer/Client Attraction and Persuasion Strategies Revealed............................................. The 6 KEY Marketing Componets That NO Business Owner, Corporate CEO, Sales Manager, Business to Business Marketer, Real Estate Professional, Retailer, Sales Professional, Doctor, Accountant, Financial Planner, or Professionals Involved in "Practice Building" Should Be Without. To Receive The FREE REPORT, Simply Return This Message With the Words "FREE REPORT" Written in The Subject Box. -You are receiving this message, as you were referred to our company as a person interested in business and marketing strategies. If you are receiving this in error, please do not reply, and accept our apologies. This IS a one time mailing. From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Fri Aug 17 15:52:09 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:52:09 -1000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 06:35 AM 8/17/01, Aimee Farr wrote: >Reese: >> Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info >> sealed if there was a problem with releasing it? > >There probably wasn't...agents go on the record. Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities and case citation? Why not be straightforward about it to begin with? >Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them. Cypherpunks don't get the power and sovereign immunity of the reigning governmental infrastructure to cower behind. Show me a proof that no Agent has ever used a remailer, that no Agent shall ever use a remailer. >Do you think you need probable cause for investigation? I think that probable cause is needed for a valid investigation and where evidence is collected, for that evidence to properly be called valid in a court of law. In court, it is immensely helpful if the defense attorney has at least a half-a-clue and is on the ball, volumes could be said about judges who are interested in strict construction of all the applicable rules and regulations. See the ongoing tribulations and trials of Jim Bell and CJ Parker for some infuriating examples of defense attorneys and judges who do not meet these ideals in the most exemplary fashion. I think that in more than a sufficient number of cases, people will do what they want, regardless of the letter of the law. I think that some people are in better positions to get away with this than others. I think that those who make their living in law enforcement and/or jurisprudence are people, but I may be wrong - some or all of them may be sub-human. Such as that isn't mine to decide, nor is it mine to announce and/or act on - but I can watch and remember. ;) Reese From declan at well.com Fri Aug 17 10:15:50 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:15:50 -0400 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: <200108170506.f7H56WC19551@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:05:45PM -0700 References: <200108170506.f7H56WC19551@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010817131550.A26083@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:05:45PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > We don't need a proposal for "voluntary self-labelling"...if it's > voluntary, people can already do it. In fact, they already do. Of > course, what people are now doing is not at all what the proponents of > "voluntary self-labelling" apparently intend to be the voluntary labels. In fact, we do have voluntary self-labeling already. Any responsible webmaster will include meta tags, and adult sites generally want to be found, so they'll lard up with XXX HOT SEXY ASIAN BABES etc. On my own site, I use meta tags to denote nude photos, so properly-configured browsers can stay away (http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/nudes-abstract.html). That is what the market has come to decide on. There is demand for keywords, even these inexact ones. XML will speed this process. Other systems, such as RSACi, have their birth in government pressure and there is no evidence the market would move to adopt them in the absence of government pressure. Born in sin and bereft of virtue, they should be opposed. -Declan From Law Fri Aug 17 13:23:48 2001 From: Law (Law) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:23:48 -0700 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications From: Ray Everett-Church Subject: Book announcement--Ludlow Comments: cc: wolfskil at mit.edu To: CYBERIA-L at LISTSERV.AOL.COM Forwarding... Please direct any inquiries about the book to wolfskil at mit.edu. -----Original Message----- From: Jud Wolfskill [mailto:wolfskil at MIT.EDU] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 1:17 PM To: Cyberia-L-Request at listserv.aol.com Subject: book announcement--Ludlow I thought readers of the Cyberia List might be interested in this book. For more information please visit http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=B37FD3FE-0FA5-461E-8119-D94C1B50363B&ttype=2&tid=4196 Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias edited by Peter Ludlow In Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias, Peter Ludlow extends the approach he used in High Noon on the Electronic Frontier, offering a collection of writings that reflects the eclectic nature of the online world, as well as its tremendous energy and creativity. This time the subject is the emergence of governance structures within online communities and the visions of political sovereignty shaping some of those communities. Ludlow views virtual communities as laboratories for conducting experiments in the construction of new societies and governance structures. While many online experiments will fail, Ludlow argues that given the synergy of the online world, new and superior governance structures may emerge. Indeed, utopian visions are not out of place, provided that we understand the new utopias to be fleeting localized "islands in the Net" and not permanent institutions. The book is organized in five sections. The first section considers the sovereignty of the Internet. The second section asks how widespread access to resources such as Pretty Good Privacy and anonymous remailers allows the possibility of "Crypto Anarchy"--essentially carving out space for activities that lie outside the purview of nation states and other traditional powers. The third section shows how the growth of e-commerce is raising questions of legal jurisdiction and taxation for which the geographic boundaries of nation-states are obsolete. The fourth section looks at specific experimental governance structures evolved by online communities. The fifth section considers utopian and anti-utopian visions for cyberspace. Peter Ludlow is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Contributors Richard Barbrook, John Perry Barlow, William E. Baugh Jr., David S. Bennahum, Hakim Bey, David Brin, Andy Cameron, Dorothy E. Denning, Mark Dery, Kevin Doyle, Duncan Frissell, Eric Hughes, Karrie Jacobs, David Johnson, Peter Ludlow, Timothy C. May, Jennifer L. Mnookin, Nathan Newman, David G. Post, Jedediah S. Purdy, Charles J. Stivale. 6 x 9, 451 pp., 4 illus. paper ISBN 0-262-62151-7 cloth ISBN 0-262-12238-3 Digital Communication series Jud Wolfskill Associate Publicist MIT Press 5 Cambridge Center, 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 617.253.2079 617.253.1709 fax wolfskil at mit.edu ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request at listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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' From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 17 13:55:47 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:55:47 -0700 Subject: Physicspunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108172055.f7HKtof02203@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 17, 2001, at 01:17 PM, An Metet wrote: > It's not surprising when a hot body and a cold body approach the same > temperature. > > But, in the case described the two bodies start out at the same > temperature. One radiates more energy towards the other one at that > particular temperature. So, you would expect that one body would > become hotter than the other. Radiative transfer goes as the fourth power of the temperature difference between two bodies. The hot object will radiate energy to the cooler object roughly as (delta T)^4. When the temperatures are equal, radiative transfer is equal in both directions. Think of "radiance" as being a bit analogous to thermal conductivity. Heat transfer still depends on a driving force (temperature difference). All heat transfer functions have something like this form: Heat Transfer is proportional to a (power per unit area) x (area) x (temperature)^(some exponent) This is of course the same form Ohm's law takes: current = voltage/resistance current = voltage x "conductance" Here, current plays the role of heat transfer. Voltage is the potential difference, or delta T. Conductance plays the role of emissivity, radiance, etc. This is just the very basic flux equation, seen in physics, geology, even economics. The "perpetual motion machine" envisaged would no more work for two metals of differing emissivities than such a machine woudl work by placing two metals of different conductances together. > From the hints you've dropped I see the general outline of the > solution. The photons going between the two blocks of metal will > "thermalize" and the volume between the two blocks will look like the > inside of a cavity. The rate of energy transfer in each direction > will then be the same. > > In fact, if the two blocks were contained in a large thermos which > perfectly reflected the photons, the same effect would occur. It > would be like an inside out cavity. Each block would end up at the > same temperature. (Perhaps slightly lower than the start temperature > because it must take some energy to fill the space with thermalized > photons.) > Yes, you've got it right. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 17 13:57:51 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:57:51 -0700 Subject: Aimee Farr, bomb making expert In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108172058.f7HKw0f02272@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 17, 2001, at 01:28 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: Note that Aimee Farr has now written more posts about "bombs" and "bomb-making" than any other single poster here in the last year. She is one to complain about too many posts about bombs. --Tim May From ttml at bom5.vsnl.net.in Fri Aug 17 01:42:35 2001 From: ttml at bom5.vsnl.net.in (T T M GROUP OF INDUSTRIES) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:12:35 +0530 Subject: PRICING OF TERRY BATH ROBES/ WRAPS /INSTITUTIONAL TOWELS &,ROBES Message-ID: T T M GROUP OF INDUSTRIES LTD 307 - C, CRYSTAL PLAZA, NEW LINK ROAD,ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400 053 , INDIA . TEL : 91-22-6394010 / 6349103 FAX : 91-22-6342948 / 6354768 EMAIL : ttml at bom5.vsnl.net.in / ttml1 at vsnl.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Dear Sir, Sub: PRICES OF BATHROBE AND WRAPS MADE OF TERRY PILE OR VELOUR FABRIC We produce finest quality of TERRY TOWEL , Man , Woman & Children BATH ROBES and WRAPS Of Terry pile and Velour , this Plant has been setup with State of Art Technology, situated near Mumbai -India around 150 Kms from the Sea Port and all Plant and Machines are imported Of European , like – Looms of Sulzer/Vamatex Switzerland & Italy ., Dyeing and Finishing Plant from - Italy. , stitching& Hemming m/cs from -Germany and Japan., Bath Robes & Wrap stitching plant setup with trained and experianced workforce of textile designing. PRICING OF Ladies and Gents Terry Pile/Velour Bath Robes DESIGNER TERRY BATH ROBES FROM THE UNIT SET UP WITH STATE OF ART TECHNOLOGY KIMINO 48" TERRY PILE FABRIC 360 GSM WHITE USD 6.00 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. KIMINO 48" TERRY PILE FABRIC 360 GSM LIGHT/MEDIUM USD 6.25 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. KIMINO 48" TERRY PILE FABRIC 360 GSM DARK COLOURS USD 6.50 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. KIMINO 48" VELOUR FABRIC 360 GSM WHITE USD 7.25 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. KIMINO 48" VELOUR FABRIC 360 GSM LIGHT/MEDIUM USD 7.50 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. KIMINO 48" VELOUR FABRIC 360 GSM DARK COLOURS USD 8.00 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. SHAWAL COLAR 48" TERRY PILE FABRIC 340/360 GSM WHITE USD 6.25 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. SHAWAL COLAR 48" TERRY PILE FABRIC 340/360 GSM LIGHT/MEDIUM USD 6.75 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. SHAWAL COLAR 48" TERRY PILE FABRIC 340/360 GSM DARK COLOURS USD 7.00 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. SHAWAL COLAR 48" VELOUR FABRIC 340/360 GSM WHITE USD 7.75 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. SHAWAL COLAR 48" VELOUR FABRIC 340/360 GSM LIGHT/MEDIUM USD 8.00 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA. SHAWAL COLAR 48" VELOUR FABRIC 340/360 GSM DARK COLOURS USD 8.50 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA TERRY KNITTED FABRIC BATHROBES FROM WARP TERRY KNITTED FABRIC KIMINO 48" FABRIC 320 GSM WHITE USD 5.50 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA SHAWAL COLAR 48" FABRIC 320 GSM WHITE USD 5.75 /PIECE FOB MUMBAI INDIA PriceLadies & Gents Terry pile /Velour fabric Wrap TERRY PILE 33" WRAP 340/360 GSM PRICE USD 3.25 /PC FOB TERRY PILE 30" WRAP 340/360 GSM PRICE USD 3.00 /PC FOB TERRY PILE 27" WRAP 340/360 GSM PRICE USD 2.75 /PC FOB VELOUR 33" WRAP 340/360 GSM PRICE USD 4.00 /PC FOB VELOUR 30" WRAP 340/360 GSM PRICE USD 3.75 /PC FOB VELOUR 27" WRAP 340/360 GSM PRICE USD 3.50 /PC FOB Price of Institutional Towel Bath , Hand & Wash MILL MADE, 12x 12 : 400 GSM PRICE USD 0.15 AND450 GSM PRICE USD 0.17 16x 25 : 400 GSM PRICE USD 0.39 AND450 GSM PRICE USD 0.44 24x 44 : 400 GSM PRICE USD 1.09 AND450 GSM PRICE USD 1.23 27x 54 : 400 GSM PRICE USD 1.52 AND450 GSM PRICE USD 1.71 Price of Institutional Bathrobes, KAMINO BATHROBES 48" 360GSM TERRY PILE USD 6.00 PER PIECE. PRICE FOB SHAWAL COLAR BATHROBES 48" 360GSM TERRY PILE USD 6.50 PER PIECE.. PRICE FOB POWER LOOM WHITE INSTITUTIONAL TOWEL LIKE PAKISTAN /BANGLADESH QUALITY YARN GROUND 10,PILE 10, WEFT 10 SINGLE PRICE USD 1.60 PER LBS FOB MUMBAI INDIA. YARN GROUND 10,PILE 16, WEFT 12 SINGLE PRICE USD 1.75 PER LBS FOB MUMBAI INDIA. KAMINO BATHROBES 48" 360GSM TERRY PILE USD 5.00 PER PIECE. PRICE FOB SHAWAL COLAR BATHROBES 48" 360GSM TERRY PILE USD 5.50 PER PIECE.. PRICE FOB Price of Ensemble Bath, Hand and Wash Towel with Cotton/Rayon Border ENSMBLED BATH HAND WASH FOR STORES 6 TO 8 COLOURS PLANN : 12x 12 : 400 GSM PRICE USD 0.19 AND450 GSM PRICE USD 0.21 16x 25 : 400 GSM PRICE USD 0.49 AND450 GSM PRICE USD 0.55 24x 44 : 400 GSM PRICE USD 1.36 AND450 GSM PRICE USD 1.53 27x 54 : 400 GSM PRICE USD 1.90 AND450 GSM PRICE USD 2.14 GOLF TOWEL WITH GROMMET AND HOOKS PRICES MAY BE QUOTED ON BUYERS' REQUEST Other towels:- Yarn Dyed Stripe Beach Towel (Stripe / Velour / Sheared ).,Unidyed Towel with Jacquard Border Kitchen Towel of Yarn Dyed with /without Border.. PRICES MAY BE SENT ON BUYERS' REQUEST We are selling to the Reputed Wholesellers of USA , Europe, Australia ,Japan,UAE, Africa,and other 20 countries. You will find our quality matching to the international standard at most economical prices. Your enquiry will be attend by our sales team on top priority . Awaiting your reply with serious enquiry . With Kind Regards. SUDHIR AGRAWAL Managing Director Email : ttml@ bom5.vsnl.net.in / ttml1 at vsnl.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 14945 bytes Desc: not available URL: From georgemw at speakeasy.net Fri Aug 17 14:19:47 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:19:47 -0700 Subject: Physicspunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B7D2803.13152.10A95073@localhost> On 17 Aug 2001, at 16:17, An Metet wrote: > > But, in the case described the two bodies start out at the same > temperature. One radiates more energy towards the other one at that > particular temperature. So, you would expect that one body would > become hotter than the other. > The important fact that you seem to be unaware of is that the body that radiates faster also absorbs more (reflects less). A black plate will radiate faster than a white one, but the white plate is reflecting almost all the light that hits. Cavity radiation and blackbody radiation are used synonymously. George > From the hints you've dropped I see the general outline of the > solution. The photons going between the two blocks of metal will > "thermalize" and the volume between the two blocks will look like the > inside of a cavity. The rate of energy transfer in each direction > will then be the same. > > In fact, if the two blocks were contained in a large thermos which > perfectly reflected the photons, the same effect would occur. It > would be like an inside out cavity. Each block would end up at the > same temperature. (Perhaps slightly lower than the start temperature > because it must take some energy to fill the space with thermalized > photons.) From jbsptrsft5 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 17 14:37:50 2001 From: jbsptrsft5 at yahoo.com (Wayne) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:37:50 Subject: Substantially Cut Costs Increase Sales Via E Mail Message-ID: <200108172153.QAA00655@einstein.ssz.com> I am sending you this to see if you might be interested in testing E Mail marketing for your company. Based on our experience, targeted E Mail marketing should dramatically reduce your marketing costs while simultaneously boosting your sales. (To reply by E Mail to this message or be removed from our list, Please go to the bottom of this message for an E Mail link. Please do not respond to us by hitting the "Reply" button. Our phone number is also located at the bottom of this message.) I am CEO of a software company based in Southern California. 100% of our sales are business to business, as we produce specialty software designed for business use only; primarily by manufacturers. We launched a new software product this February and so far have marketed it exclusively by E Mail to almost a quarter million companies. The response-and sales-have been tremendous, while our marketing costs have been dirt cheap; the lowest, in fact, by far of any marketing I've done in my 35 year business career, and that includes direct mail, trade magazine and specialty advertising, trade shows, outdoor and broadcast. In order to do our E Mail marketing, my staff and I had to discover how to develop E Mail lists reflecting our business customer profile, how to do the actual E Mailing without antagonizing potential buyers, how to handle leads and referrals to our Web site, how to deal with the spam issue, and the multitude of other challenges inherent in E Mail marketing. During the course of our sales effort, we have been asked by a number of companies to whom we've E Mailed our advertising if we would consider assisting them in developing their own E Mail marketing. As this response has been both unsolicited and quite strong, we have decided to offer our E Mail marketing services on a limited bases to companies which sell business to business only. If you sell products or services to other businesses, please consider the following: 1. We will either develop an ongoing E Mail marketing program for you, or consult with you to set up your own E Mail marketing division in house. 2. If we handle your campaign for you, our services will include development of your E Mail lists for you in your exact customer profile as defined by you, consultation on the creation of your advertising piece, and consultation on the handling of leads, phone calls, and web site referrals. We will also send all of your E Mails for you. Our charges for this service are twenty cents per E Mail address custom developed from your exact customer profile, and $500.00 for the actual sending of the E Mails. You will need to hire us to develop a minimum of 15,000 E Mail addresses of potential business customers for you, which brings a minimum order to $3,500 to reach 15,000 potential customers. The twenty cents per custom E Mail address is a one time charge, and it is not a list rental; we will turn the list over to you at your request. Once your list is developed, resending your list will only cost $500.00, regardless of how big your list becomes, up to 500,000 E Mail addresses. Compare that to direct mail. 3. If you would rather have us consult to set up an E Mail marketing division for you in house, our fee is $15,000.00. This includes specific recommendations, consultation and training on all procedures to develop custom E Mail lists and required software, consultation and training on all procedures to verify E Mail address and required software, consultation and training on all procedures to set up for and the handling of removes and required software, the set up for and the handling of leads, set up of a secure Web site, and all technical set up, bandwidth and software required for the actual E Mailing itself. You would also receive our proprietary software developed for the handling of E Mail lists, tracking promotions sent, handling removes and dead E Mail addresses, and the tracking of criteria used to develop each E Mail address. I would be pleased to discuss this further with you. If you are interested, please just give me a call at (661) 286-0041. Thank you. Wayne McFarland Chief Executive Officer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, To REPLY, if you have questions about our services and wish to respond by E Mail, please click on the E Mail address following and enter "Inquiry" in the subject line. REPLYS please click here: manufsoft99 at yahoo.com To be REMOVED from our mailing list, please click on the E Mail address following and enter "Remove" in the subject line. REMOVES please click here: jbsptrsft5 at yahoo.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From vip at esttrading.com Fri Aug 17 14:45:18 2001 From: vip at esttrading.com (E Street ) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:45:18 Subject: Single Stock Futures is coming! Are you ready? Message-ID: <200108172153.OAA22735@toad.com> Dear Investor, Curious about Commodity futures markets like currencies, stock indexes, bonds and crude oil? With the much anticipated release date of trading in Single Stock Futures on August 21st, Jagfn.com, the internet financial television station with 7 million viewers, has asked E Street Trading.com to appear on their station to discuss the futures markets and the huge impact that Single Stock Futures will have on the investment world ! E Street's Chief Analyst, Pat Westfall will appear live on Tuesday August 21st, 8:30 am Eastern time and we invite you to watch Pat explain various technical methods to the markets as well as a look at how Single Stock Futures could effect your investment portfolio. We would love to have your input! We would appreciate even more if you would like to call us and give us some input on which commodities you would like Pat to discuss live on webcast TV. If you are not already watching Jagfn.com, go to our website www.eStreetTrading.com and click on the Jagfn.com icon – it's easy and it's FREE. With the release of Single Stock Futures you may never look at investing the same way again! Please call us at 866-463-7878 and ask for Chris, Chad or Lars. Yours Sincerely, E-Street Trading.com From aimee.farr at pobox.com Fri Aug 17 13:28:21 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:28:21 -0500 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <8adea68258727979439b143d9f0b1bf0@remailer.privacy.at> Message-ID: Anon---- > Aimee: > > > ...."quite possibly" ...FBI "Black Ops Blow-Em-Up" teams? > Uh-uhm. If had to > > guess, I would bet that explosives take a lot of paperwork. > Bombs are not > > efficient investigative tools for law enforcement. They blow up > the evidence > > and the criminal. It's hard to run surveillance on a blown-up > target. That > > would be LEA "disintermediation." They also make a lot of noise. > > You would find it illuminating I hope not, considering the context. > to acquaint yourself with the Judy > Barri case. The FBI was conducting actual pipe-bomb making classes > for the local police, including setting them off in a nearby quarry. > This was just prior to the bombing of Judy's car. Interesting too > that they were on the scene within minutes of the explosion, to > arrest Judy and Darryl for bombing themselves. There's a current > suit in fed court about it -- look it up. The guy who was head of > COINTELPRO was involved in this. ok ~Aimee From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 17 14:01:49 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:01:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: PP2P: Massively Distributed Microcrime? (edited highlights) (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:39:32 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: Digital Bearer Settlement List , dcsb at ai.mit.edu, cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: PP2P: Massively Distributed Microcrime? (edited highlights) --- begin forwarded text From anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org Fri Aug 17 13:17:38 2001 From: anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org (An Metet) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:17:38 -0400 Subject: Physicspunks Message-ID: Tim May graciously wrote: > The physics cited by Anonymous is hand-waving. Absolutely. It's my weak understanding of a beginning physics book. Thank you for your reply. >> If a block of a metal is hollowed out and a small port is drilled to >> see in, the radiance of the cavity is substantially higher than that >> of the surface of the metal. As if that weren't shocking enough, it >> turns out that the radiance of cavities is the same no matter what >> kind of metal is used. (This is so counterintuitive that I almost >> don't believe it!) > > It is not correct to say the radiance is either higher or lower than > some other material: the radiance approximates that of a perfect > black body. My book defines "radiance" in terms of the amount of energy radiated per surface area. (It likes to use W/cm^2.) The radiance of the surface of different materials at various temperatures can be compared. The radiance of a cavity to the surface material can be compared and it is higher. The radiance of two cavities is the same, but this is not immediately obvious to the uninitiated. It's a reasonable thing to measure and discuss. > Nothing mystical at all. If you don't already know, it's actually surprising. > The "perpetual motion" part is a non sequitor. > There are many cases where a material of higher radiance, e.g. the > surface of the earth, is "looking at" (in the sense of the drawing > above) a material or thing of lower radiance, e.g., deep space. > And guess what: the earth radiates more energy toward deep space > than deep space radiates toward the earth. This is one reason > deserts get so cold so fast at night. It's not surprising when a hot body and a cold body approach the same temperature. But, in the case described the two bodies start out at the same temperature. One radiates more energy towards the other one at that particular temperature. So, you would expect that one body would become hotter than the other. This effect (if it really occurred) could be exploited to make an engine which would return the two materials back to the same temperature, but also do some work in the meantime - a perpetual motion machine. >From the hints you've dropped I see the general outline of the solution. The photons going between the two blocks of metal will "thermalize" and the volume between the two blocks will look like the inside of a cavity. The rate of energy transfer in each direction will then be the same. In fact, if the two blocks were contained in a large thermos which perfectly reflected the photons, the same effect would occur. It would be like an inside out cavity. Each block would end up at the same temperature. (Perhaps slightly lower than the start temperature because it must take some energy to fill the space with thermalized photons.) From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 17 13:32:20 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Digression Message-ID: Jim wrote: >"and therefore insecurity" >Does not follow. >I would argue that rather the simpler, the stronger. A simple >structure, if it can be broken, would have simple breaks. So what do you make of this bit from the abstract: "The security of Rijndael depends on a new and untested hardness assumption: it is computationally infeasible to solve equations of this type." How long do you think that's going to keep it "secure", all things considered? Even though the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in '78 cleared the NSA of any charges of introducing deiberate weakness into DES by modifying the S-boxes, everybody knows they broke it ages ago anyway. Or at least that's the way the hearsay and hot air blows. What makes you think things are going be any different this time around, the NSA theoreticians aren't anymore likely to give up and kick back than they ever were. You can do a lot with plaintext/ciphertext and statistical calculation: it stands to reason that while most people get stuck nattering on about what you can't do computationally, other people are quietly exploring what else can actually be done with available resources. The smartest, cleverest and most creative prevail, no matter which sector pays their paycheck. The effect of intitutional baggage on performance is a seperate issue, but as the cypherpunk movement itself shows, it's dangerous to discount anyone for not being a part of any given work environment. I happen to think fundamental respect for brainpower and ability should go both ways. ~Faustine. From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 17 14:35:00 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:35:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Backyard Ballistics Message-ID: Backyard Ballistics W. Gurstelle ISBN 1-55652-375-0 A new book that explains how to make potato guns, petards, catapults, etc. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From T_crow133 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 17 16:41:03 2001 From: T_crow133 at hotmail.com (T_crow133 at hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hello! Message-ID: <200108172341.QAA02857@toad.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 775 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nobody at remailer.privacy.at Fri Aug 17 07:47:01 2001 From: nobody at remailer.privacy.at (Anonymous) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:47:01 +0200 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition Message-ID: <8adea68258727979439b143d9f0b1bf0@remailer.privacy.at> Aimee: > ...."quite possibly" ...FBI "Black Ops Blow-Em-Up" teams? Uh-uhm. If had to > guess, I would bet that explosives take a lot of paperwork. Bombs are not > efficient investigative tools for law enforcement. They blow up the evidence > and the criminal. It's hard to run surveillance on a blown-up target. That > would be LEA "disintermediation." They also make a lot of noise. You would find it illuminating to acquaint yourself with the Judy Barri case. The FBI was conducting actual pipe-bomb making classes for the local police, including setting them off in a nearby quarry. This was just prior to the bombing of Judy's car. Interesting too that they were on the scene within minutes of the explosion, to arrest Judy and Darryl for bombing themselves. There's a current suit in fed court about it -- look it up. The guy who was head of COINTELPRO was involved in this. From Robert at hinau.com Fri Aug 17 17:19:45 2001 From: Robert at hinau.com (Robert) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:19:45 Subject: Effective Cancer Treatment Message-ID: <200108171519.IAA01024@toad.com> Dear Sir/Madam This e-mail is sent to you by family and Friends of a girl named Robin Prange. This e-mail contains information concerning very effective methods of cancer-treatment, with as little side effects as possible. Furthermore it contains a request for help for Robin Prange. I hope you are willing to spend 5 minutes of your time, it can make a difference GENERAL INFORMATION Robin Prange is a 7 year old Dutch girl who has been fighting Acute Leukemia since her third birthday in 1996. Her treatment was done in the Netherlands, and was initially successful. She relapsed however in 1999. She had a bone-marrow transplant in June 2000 and looked successful until December 2000 when she had her second relapse, just before Christmas. Doctors in Holland told us that she had no chances of survival, our only option would be to stop treatment or to administer low doses of chemo to keep her alive, with a good quality of live, as long as possible. After the first shock was over we started investigating through the internet. We did not get any support from the doctors or any one else in our search. Things started to look really bad at the end of May 2001. The doctors told us that she had only 10 more days to live (this was on May 27). In the mean time we found 2 or 3 alternatives in the USA. On May 28th I talked to the medical Director of the Parker Hughes Cancer Center. He gave us a 50% survival chance for the next 2 to 3 years. We took a flight from Amsterdam to Minneapolis on May 30. I would like to tell you more about their approach to cancer treatment. CANCER-INFORMATION: Today most of the cancer-treatment administered to patients is done according to a set protocol. This means that the patient's type of cancer is determined. This patient is than treated according to a protocol, which is written for an entire group of people with the same type of cancer. Everybody in that group is treated with exactly the same sort and amount of chemo. As you might understand treatment results vary in such a group. Reactions to chemotherapy differ per individual. The individual patient might even get chemo which is not effective, or the dose is too high (with possible side effects) Most oncologists agree that an individual approach in treating cancer would give the patient better chances of survival and better quality of life. In our search for treatment options for Robin we came across two institutions that offer an individual approach in treating cancer. At the Parker Hughes Cancer Center in Minneapolis (MN) and at Rational Therapeutics in Long Beach (CA) they offer an individual approach in treating cancer. They look at each patient and through advanced technology determine what kind of chemo is most effective in the patients cancer with the least side effects. We have been fighting this disease together with Robin (she has been a real trooper al this time) for five years now. We are strongly in favor of their approach. Currently Robin is treated at Parker Hughes Cancer Center. The doctors there determined which chemotherapy is still effective in Robin and consequently treated her accordingly. In the past 49 days she had no side effects and she has not lost her hair. She looks good and she is in good spirits. The Parker Hughes Cancer Centre is an outpatient clinic which treats 50 to 60 patients on a daily basis. Their website is www.parkerhughes.org Rational Therapeutics determines, together with the patients physician, which chemo is the most effective. Their approach is similar to the Parker Hughes approach. Their website is www.rationalterapeutics.com If you are interested or ever in need for more information on cancer treatment do check out their websites REQUEST FOR HELP Robins insurance company (based in the Netherlands) is not covering the cost of treatment in the USA. Estimated cost for the coming 3 years is $300.000-$400.000. Her parents are not able to come up with such a huge amount of money. If you find our information valuable and if you also want to help Robin. We than kindly request a small donation of $1-$3 (if you want to donate more, please do. DONATION-INFORMATION Money-transfer to US-account of R. Prange Vuurlaan 52 2408 NC Alphen a/d Rijn Netherlands account nr. 1364345577 at: Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. Minneapolis, MN 55479 (aba# 091000019) Money-checks sent to Wells Fargo and made payable to the above mentioned. Or money enclosed in an envelope send to the address in the Netherlands You can verify Robin's story on her website at www.robinprange.nl Her homepage is in English and in Dutch. You could also call the Parker Hughes Cancer Center at 651-628-0098 to verify her treatment. We started a foundation in the Netherlands called Friends of Robin Prange (in Dutch: "vrienden van Robin Prange") If you find our information valuable please forward this e-mail to the people listed in your address-book We sincerely hope you are not offended or emotionally hurt by this e-mail. We also hope that you never have to fight this battle, but if you do we hope that you remember this e-mail. Kind regards Friends and family of Robin Prange From mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu Fri Aug 17 10:40:49 2001 From: mix at anon.lcs.mit.edu (lcs Mixmaster Remailer) Date: 17 Aug 2001 17:40:49 -0000 Subject: Surveillance by Design By Wendy Grossman Message-ID: <20010817174049.20195.qmail@nym.alias.net> > Even without the proposed legislation, anonymity is increasingly fragile on > the Net. Corporations have sued for libel to force services to disclose the > identities of those who posted disparaging comments about them online. > Individual suits of this type are rarer, but last December, Samuel D. > Graham, a former professor of urology at Emory University, won a libel > judgment against a Yahoo user whose identity was released under subpoena. Actually the tide is turning on this issue. There have been two high-profile cases this year in which suits designed to reveal the identities of pseudonymous posters have failed. In May, Medinex dropped its lawsuit attempting to learn the identities of its online critics. http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Medinex_v._Awe2bad4mdnx/20010522_eff_dismiss_pr.html Wonder why they were concerned? Take a look at http://quote.yahoo.com/q?s=MDNX.OB&d=c&k=c1&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l. The stock has fallen from almost 10 to about 0.2 in the past 18 months. Ouch. A month earlier, the EFF and ACLU were successful in quashing a subpoena by foundering auctioneer 2TheMart.com attempting to identify pseudonymous participants in an online bulletin board. http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/2TheMart_case/20010420_eff_2themart_pr.html The company is currently defending itself against charges of securities fraud. It seems that the same kind of people who run a company into the ground are the ones who want to muzzle their critics and who are least tolerant of anonymity. These two recent successes by the EFF will hopefully set precedents for better protection of identity. Of course, the real problem is the use of utterly inadequate technology for pseudonymous activities. People don't realize how risky it is to participate in an online financial discussion without adequate technological protection. When things go wrong, litigants will lash out at anyone who is a target. Financial chat without layered protection is like sex without a condom. The list posted earlier (thanks, Seth) provides a good starting point for online protection: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php. The gold standard for this technology is the Freedom software from Zero Knowledge Systems. But if you're not willing to pay, at least go through another site before trusting your identity to an online chat service. Practice Safe Chat! From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 17 16:33:21 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:33:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Book announcement -- Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:12:53 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: Digital Bearer Settlement List , dcsb at ai.mit.edu, cryptography at wasabisystems.com, coderpunks at toad.com, mac-crypto at vmeng.com, e-gold-list at talk.e-gold.com, farber at cis.upenn.edu, believer at telepath.com, net-thinkers at vmeng.com Subject: Book announcement -- Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias --- begin forwarded text From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 17 16:38:42 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:38:42 -0500 Subject: kuro5hin.org || 21st Century Marxism Message-ID: <3B7DAB02.4F80B2E6@ssz.com> http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/16/135156/302 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From T_crow133 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 17 16:39:43 2001 From: T_crow133 at hotmail.com (T_crow133 at hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: Hello! Message-ID: <200108172339.f7HNdhq03616@ak47.algebra.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 775 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 17 16:40:25 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:40:25 -0500 Subject: kuro5hin.org || The Economist survey on drugs Message-ID: <3B7DAB69.EA41AE3D@ssz.com> http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/16/20428/2068 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 17 11:15:36 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:15:36 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: IP: MUST READ -- Censorship in action why I don't publish my HDCPresults by Niels Ferguson (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:03:52 -0400 From: David Farber Reply-To: farber at cis.upenn.edu To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: MUST READ -- Censorship in action why I don't publish my HDCP results by Niels Ferguson Censorship in action: why I don't publish my HDCP results Niels Ferguson August 15, 2001 Summary I have written a paper detailing security weaknesses in the HDCP content protection system. I have decided to censor myself and not publish this paper for fear of prosecution and/or liability under the US DMCA law. Introduction My name is Niels Ferguson. I'm a professional cryptographer. My job is to design, analyse, and attack cryptographic security systems, a bit like a digital locksmith. I work to make computer systems and the Internet more secure. You would think that people would be in favour of that, right? Computer security and cryptography are hard. It is easy to make mistakes, and one mistake is all it takes to create a weakness. You learn from your mistakes, but there are too many mistakes to make them all yourself. That's why we publish. We share our knowledge with others, so that they don't have to repeat the same mistake. Take a look at my publications. You will see a mixture of new designs, analyses, and attacks. This is how we learn and how we improve the state of the art in computer security. HDCP Recently I found the documentation of the High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) system on the internet. HDCP is a cryptographic system developed by Intel that encrypts video on the DVI bus. The DVI bus is used to connect digital video cameras and DVD players with digital TVs, etc. The aim of HDCP is to prevent illegal copying of video contents by encrypting the signal. HDCP is fatally flawed. My results show that an experienced IT person can recover the HDCP master key in about 2 weeks using four computers and 50 HDCP displays. Once you know the master key, you can decrypt any movie, impersonate any HDCP device, and even create new HDCP devices that will work with the 'official' ones. This is really, really bad news for a security system. If this master key is ever published, HDCP will provide no protection whatsoever. The flaws in HDCP are not hard to find. As I like to say: "I was just reading it and it broke." What do you do when you find a result like this? First, you have to write it down and explain it. Then you publish your paper so that the mistakes can be fixed, and others can learn from it. That is how all science works. I wrote a paper on HDCP, but I cannot publish it. DMCA There is a US law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that makes it illegal to distribute "circumvention technology", such as systems that break copyright protection schemes. HDCP is used to protect copyrights. There are lawyers who claim that a scientific paper like mine is a circumvention technology within the meaning of the DMCA, because it explains the weaknesses of a system. I have been advised by a US lawyer who works in this field that if I publish my paper, I might very well be prosecuted and/or sued under US law. This is outrageous. The risk to me I travel to the US regularly, both for professional and for personal reasons. I simply cannot afford to be sued or prosecuted in the US. I would go bankrupt just paying for my lawyers. I want to make it quite clear that Intel, who developed the HDCP system, has not threatened me in any way. But the threat does not come only from Intel. The US Department of Justice could prosecute me. Any other affected party, such as a movie studio whose films are protected with HDCP, could sue me under the DMCA. That is a risk I cannot afford to take. The simple alternative would be to never travel to the US again. This would harm me significantly, both professionally and personally. It would lock me out of many conferences in my field, and keep me away from family and friends. It all sounds a bit too far-fetched, right? Who would sue over the publication of an article? Well, there are very good reasons to believe that I risk a lawsuit if I publish my paper. A team of researchers led by Professor Edward Felten was recently threatened with a DMCA-based lawsuit if they published their own scientific article. The resulting court case is still pending. Freedom of speech We have this little principle called the freedom of speech. It is codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the US Constitution, and Dutch law. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow the free circulation of ideas and to let the truth be heard. There can be no doubt that my paper is protected by the free speech rights. The DMCA imposes a serious restriction on the freedom of speech. The DMCA makes it illegal to talk about certain security systems. The equivalent law for non-digital protection systems would make it illegal to warn people about a cheap and very weak door lock being installed on their houses because criminals could also use that same information. In western society we restrict the freedom of speech only for very serious reasons, and after careful consideration. For example, it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, or to ask someone to commit a murder. The DMCA restricts the freedom of speech because the movie industry is afraid of losing money. Below I will argue that the DMCA does not achieve that goal, but that aside: do we really want to sell our freedom of speech for money? The DMCA is a scary development. Next time that commercial interests clash with the freedom of speech, the industry will point to the DMCA and claim they need equivalent protection. They might outlaw the publication of a report detailing bad safety features in a car, or of flaws found in a particular brand of tires. After all, those publications harm industry too. Where will it stop? Jurisdiction The DMCA is a US law. I am a citizen of the Netherlands, and I live and work in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Why do I care about the DMCA at all? The USA is apt to apply its own laws way beyond its own borders. Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian programmer, was arrested last month in the US. He is charged with violating the DMCA while performing his work in Russia as an employee for a Russian firm. As far as we know, what he did was perfectly legal in Russia, and in most other countries in the world. He is now out on bail, but cannot leave northern California until further notice. Where does this lead to? What if countries start applying their own laws to the things people do in other countries? Will you be arrested next time you go abroad? Do you really want to take that holiday in China if you have more than one child? Are you sure that Germany allows you to have those links to political pamphlets on your web site? This type of extraterritorial application of national law violates a basic human right, because you cannot possibly know which laws apply to you. Imagine living in a country where the laws are kept secret, and you never know whether you are violating a law. Suppose a US citizen works for a firearms manufacturer in the US, making guns. One of those guns turns up here in Amsterdam and is used to commit a crime. This person takes a holiday over here in Europe, and is arrested for violating the Dutch firearms laws because he helped manufacture the gun in the US. That is what happened to Dmitry. Is that fair? Is that how we want to run this world? The principle of applying national laws to anybody that publishes anything anywhere in the world is terrifying. If we allow this principle to be used, we will never be free again. You will get a choice. You can decide to never leave your country for any reason whatsoever. This means you might not even be able to attend a wedding or funeral of a loved one. Alternatively, you can restrict all your statements to satisfy the laws of all the countries you could conceivably travel to. You might as well not say anything, because it is very hard to find something that is legal in all jurisdictions. We either lose our right to travel, or our right to speak and be heard. Which fundamental human right do you want to give up today? DMCA does not work The DMCA is a fundamentally flawed law. It is ineffective, and actually harmful to the interests it tries to protect. It stops me publishing my paper now, but someday, someone, somewhere will duplicate my results. This person might decide to just publish the HDCP master key on the Internet. Instead of fixing HDCP now before it is deployed on a large scale, the industry will be confronted with all the expense of building HDCP into every device, only to have it rendered useless. The DMCA ends up costing the industry money. No points for guessing who ends up paying for it in the end. In the long run, the DMCA will make it much easier to create illegal copies. Why? If we cannot do research in this area, we will never develop good copyright protection schemes. We will be stuck with flawed systems like HDCP, to the delight of the criminals. The DMCA has been called the Snake Oil Protection Act. When a manufacturer makes a defective product, you expect them to fix it. Not in this case. The DMCA protects the manufacturer of a defective product by making it illegal to show that the product is defective. Who came up with this idea? Copyright law Copyright law is a careful balance between the rights of the author and the public interest. The author gets a limited-time exclusive right to reproduce his work. The public gets free use of the work once the copyright expires. Furthermore, the public gets certain "fair use" rights. These include the right to use short quotes from the work in a review, for example, and the right to create a parody. If you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you also have the right to make an extra copy for your own use. A student can make a copy of a page in his textbook to mark it up while he studies. In a sneaky way the DMCA eliminates all these "fair use" rights of the public. As long as the work is protected using copyright protection technology, none of the "fair use" rights can be exercised, because it is illegal to create or own the tool with which you can exercise your fair use rights. Copyright expires, but the DMCA ensures that even when it does, the work still does not enter the public domain. The US supreme court has held that the "fair use" rights are exactly the safety valve that prevent the copyright law from violating free speech rights. This might be another reason why the DMCA is unconstitutional. In Dmitry's case, he wrote software that decoded encrypted digital books. His software has many uses. Many digital books only allow the book to be viewed on the screen. If you are blind and want to read the book on your braille display you have to use something like Dmitry's software. This is perfectly legal under the "fair use" rules of copyright law, but the DMCA forbids it thereby prohibiting blind people from accessing such books. Why this mess? Why did the movie industry campaign for the DMCA if it doesn't work? The movie and record industry have a history of claiming that new technologies will bankrupt them. When video recorders were first introduced, they swore that they would go bankrupt if people could record movies. Now they make a lot of money selling video tapes. Now they swear that they will go bankrupt if we do not restrict the freedom of speech and the public's fair use rights. Why should we believe them this time around? The DMCA exists because the movie and record industry lobbied heavily for it. It is a very one-sided law that clearly has not been thought through properly. The industry has managed to eliminate the careful balance of the copyright law and replace it with a law that effectively gives them an unlimited monopoly on copyrighted works. Could it just be that this is the real motive behind their lobby? Can we fix the DMCA? Sure. That wouldn't even be very difficult. Making and selling unauthorised copies of copyrighted works is already illegal in most jurisdictions. We could change the copyright law to impose stiffer penalties if the copyright violation involves breaking a copyright protection scheme. A bit like the difference between trespassing and breaking and entering. A law like this would achieve exactly what we want: it would restrict illegal copying of copyrighted works. It would not restrict the freedom of speech, or do away with our fair use rights. More information You can find lots more information about the DMCA and the cases of Professor Felten and Dmitry Sklyarov on the EFF web site. My declaration in the Felten court case. ---------- Copyright © 2001 by Niels Ferguson, last update 2001-08-16, comments to niels at ferguson.net [home page] For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 17 11:41:02 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:41:02 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Stealing DNA (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:37:10 -0700 From: Olga Bourlin Reply-To: extropians at extropy.org To: extropians at extropy.com Subject: Stealing DNA In your opinion, is this stealing DNA? (my apologies if this case has already been posted - I accidentally deleted a few emails about the "stealing DNA" discussion): http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=dna15&date=20010815&query=hanna Nation & World : Wednesday, August 15, 2001 Rapist snared with a sleight of straw - and his DNA By Christine Hanley Los Angeles Times SANTA ANA, Calif. - A suspect who was tricked by a police detective into leaving his saliva on a straw at a Taco Bell pleaded guilty to two rape charges Monday in a case that even his lawyer said represented a legitimate yet unusual use of DNA evidence. Brea, Calif., police Detective Susan Hanna had been working on the case for months and thought Robert William Bradford Jr. was the culprit when she invited him to a Taco Bell, saying she wanted to pick his brain about the case. After Bradford finished his soda, Hanna got him a refill, replacing his straw and, on her way out, handing the old straw to a detective disguised as an employee. The straw was sent to a crime lab for DNA testing, which connected Bradford to the rapes. "It was a shot in the dark," Hanna said. "It paid off." And despite the detective's ploy, Bradford's attorney said Monday he thinks the evidence was gathered legally. Police "did not unreasonably seize or delay Mr. Bradford. He voluntarily had the soda with the cops. They were tricky. But they weren't illegal," Donald Barkemeyer said. Bradford was sentenced Monday to two life terms in prison plus 52 years for attacking a 24-year-old woman at her Brea home in 1998 and a 19-year-old woman at an apartment complex in 2000. In each case, he slipped through an unlocked door at night. Hanna said she linked the two rapes after the second victim said her attacker reeked of smoke and also recalled how a chain-smoker who lived in the same apartment complex frequently stared in the direction of her home. After identifying Bradford as the suspect, Hanna discovered he used to live in the neighborhood where the other attack took place. That woman confirmed her attacker was a smoker. Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company From atomeven at atomeven.com Fri Aug 17 21:57:00 2001 From: atomeven at atomeven.com (Atom) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:57:00 Subject: Top 100 Sites Network Message-ID: <200108180254.TAA20014@toad.com> Hi, I am writing to invite you to join the Top 100 Sites Network. The network just opened this past week and we'd be happy to list your site. All you have to do to get listed is visit our site, submit your url, and add our link to your site. Not only are we going to send you free traffic, but we will also show you the best way to make money on the internet. We're pulling in thousands of dollars every month, and so can you! Stop by right now and partner up with our brand new network! The Top 100 Sites Network : http://www.atomeven.com/top100/ _____________________________________________ Nick Niesen AtomEven.com _____________________________________________ To unsubscribe, send a blank email to : cazremove at 9roce55.com From spider at freeshell.org Fri Aug 17 15:28:38 2001 From: spider at freeshell.org (Al Saxter) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:28:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: remove Message-ID: From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Aug 17 14:17:31 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:17:31 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Aimee Farr, bomb making expert In-Reply-To: <200108172058.f7HKw0f02272@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > She is one to complain about too many posts about bombs. Hmm, makes one want to start compiling and posting really useful information, obtained from online sources and elsewhere, after having carefully reworded them to avoid being able to pull them up on Google too easily. From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sat Aug 18 07:55:09 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 04:55:09 -1000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <20010818102531.B10513@cluebot.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818042931.01a9bda0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 04:25 AM 8/18/2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 12:52:09PM -1000, Reese wrote, quoting Aimee: Aimee wrote: >> >Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them. >> >> Cypherpunks don't get the power and sovereign immunity of the reigning >> governmental infrastructure to cower behind. >> >> Show me a proof that no Agent has ever used a remailer, that no Agent >> shall ever use a remailer. > >Of course government agents can and probably will use remailers. Duh. No shit Sherlock. Let me set this up: "Duh point of duh exhuhcoise geoogie?" >Heck, they can pose as journalists, priests, etc. complete with fake >ID and cover stories and commit felonies. Duh. No shit Sherlock. Let me quote myself in part: "...power and sovereign immunity...to cower behind." >Using mixmaster is nothing >by comparison. The government has created the Onion Routing project >expressly to protect the identity of government workers, including >agents. > >Aimee was having fun with you, Declan, do you have a chip on your shoulder, or are you just leaping to the fore in defense of a statism apologist? On this list? I'd like to know, so I can watch and remember. >and I can't exactly blame her. What can you exactly blame her for? Propagating FUD? Being a troll? Being a girl? Why did you weigh in on this discussion? Inquiring minds want to know. So drop the shitty chivalry act Declan, she's been flipping it and it is her turn to catch some without you running interference. Or would you like to explain yourself? Reese From kuddjodomnel at djodom.com Sat Aug 18 05:32:19 2001 From: kuddjodomnel at djodom.com (Dwayne Peterson) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:32:19 -0700 Subject: Make her worship you Message-ID: <207714586.50141025625038@thhebat.net> At last, the genuine thing – no more rip offs! P.E.P. are piping hot right this time! Well this is the real stuff not a counterfeit! One of the very prominents, absolutely unequalled produce is easy accessible around the world! Note what people tell on this product: "I was impressed how fast your stuff affected on my boyfriend, he can not stop babbling about how hot he is having such new girth, length, and libido!" Victoria K., Colorado "At first I considered the specimen parcel I got gratis was a kind of a mean trick, till I have taken to take the P.E.P. There are no words to depict how pleased I am with the effect I achieved from using the patch after 7 short weeks. I will be ordering on a regular basis!" Mike Brown, Las Vegas Check up more references about this wonderful product here! http://www.aparteix.com/?bxrzimialumbt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1248 bytes Desc: not available URL: From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sat Aug 18 08:37:19 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:37:19 -1000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010818105737.02128b70@mail.well.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818042931.01a9bda0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > <20010818102531.B10513@cluebot.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818050143.01d2cc58@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 04:59 AM 8/18/2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: >At 04:55 AM 8/18/01 -1000, Reese wrote: >>What can you exactly blame her for? > >I can't blame her for taunting not-so-happy and not-very-fun Reese. You have no clue how happy or fun I am, or am not. That's very un-, very uncypherpunkish of you, Declan. Jesus fucking christ Declan, she was at it before I engaged. Wake the fuck up, get over yourself (and/or it/her) and move along smartly. Do you not remember Tim's initial comments regarding her and her trolling? A special favor for you, you lummox, I made it a .sig for this post. So you can do a search from the text and verify it, since your memory is obviously taken by god-knows-what. >Spare me the cries of offended dignity; Strangely, my dignity was not offended, I think yours is. That you came (heh) to Aimee's defense indicates what, exactly? Since you are speaking for Aimee now, why did she conceal the names of those participants and the real citation in the case she referenced? >they hardly sound convincing when one has little to begin with. My "little" is nothing less than the Law and a request it be stated unambiguously by someone who knows it. However, Aimee has not been unambiguous, has she? I should go look to see what obligation LEA's and attorneys have to divulge the Law, that is, what the statutes are, not necessarily how it is interpreted, when those LEA's and/or attorney's are asked directly. Yada, go write whatever, grow up. Reese "We should kill it before it multiplies. No human being speaks in such a stilted, phony way." Too late, Tim, Declan has succumbed. . From reeza at flex.com Sat Aug 18 09:44:38 2001 From: reeza at flex.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 06:44:38 -1000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010818120121.02114570@mail.well.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818050143.01d2cc58@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > <5.0.2.1.0.20010818105737.02128b70@mail.well.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010818042931.01a9bda0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > <20010818102531.B10513@cluebot.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818063120.01c1ee40@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 06:05 AM 8/18/2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: >At 05:37 AM 8/18/01 -1000, Reese wrote: >>Strangely, my dignity was not offended, I think yours is. That you >>came (heh) to Aimee's defense indicates what, exactly? > >Paranoia becomes you. "I get paid to be paranoid when there is nothing to be paranoid about." You might consider the alternative. >I didn't "come to Aimee's defense" - A matter of conjecture. You stepped forward and responded to me, when you had not been responding to me earlier. When I presented her with some very difficult questions and called her on how she was portraying herself on the list. A rose by any other name. >- I took issue >with your post. One can (indeed almost has a moral obligation to) do the >latter without engaging in the former. But you didn't address any key issue I have with her, you sought to engage me in diversion. >As for Aimee, Tim's criticisms of her have been reasonably accurate. She, >as I have pointed out in the past, writes in strangely stilted English, has >not done standard things like reading through some of the early >cypherpunkish texts before suggesting ostensibly novel topics that have >been well-discussed here before, and so on. She can join the club. That wasn't the root of Tim's objection to her. >The difference is that she shows promise -- her posts are becoming more >relevant and comprehensible -- and you do not and likely never will. She becomes a better troll and I remain true to my ideals, IOW. You would be well-advised to question motives, here. What do I gain by pursuing an address on the legality of posting bomb recipes? What does she gain by quashing all such posts? Why? >I expect this will be my last post in this sad, Reese-infested thread. Go with God, or cockroaches, or ticks fleas and other insects suitable to your chosen station as you call it out to be, just go away so Aimee can stand up without you hovering over, so she can respond for herself. Bye. Reese From georgemw at speakeasy.net Sat Aug 18 09:35:23 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 09:35:23 -0700 Subject: rocks In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: <3B7E36DB.27061.A7BD1@localhost> On 18 Aug 2001, at 9:59, Aimee Farr wrote: > I was also taught not to turn over rocks. Under rocks is where some of the most intersting stuff is. George > ~Aimee > *reptilian slithering sounds* From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 18 07:59:56 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 09:59:56 -0500 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: Reese: (incited) > >> Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info > >> sealed if there was a problem with releasing it? > > > >There probably wasn't...agents go on the record. =================================================== > Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities and case citation? > Why not be straightforward about it to begin with? =================================================== I was brought up not to gossip. *batty eyelashes* I was also taught not to turn over rocks. > >Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them. > > Cypherpunks don't get the power and sovereign immunity of the reigning > governmental infrastructure to cower behind. Good point, I was just gigging you, Reese. Lighten up. :) > Show me a proof that no Agent has ever used a remailer, that no Agent > shall ever use a remailer. Show me proof that you don't have a brain, and that you shall never use it. That might keep you out of trouble. > >Do you think you need probable cause for investigation? > > I think that probable cause is needed for a valid investigation and > where evidence is collected, for that evidence to properly be called > valid in a court of law. In court, it is immensely helpful if the > defense attorney has at least a half-a-clue and is on the ball, > volumes could be said about judges who are interested in strict > construction of all the applicable rules and regulations. See the > ongoing tribulations and trials of Jim Bell and CJ Parker for some > infuriating examples of defense attorneys and judges who do not meet > these ideals in the most exemplary fashion. I wouldn't know about that. > I think that in more than a sufficient number of cases, people will do > what they want, regardless of the letter of the law. I think that some > people are in better positions to get away with this than others. I wouldn't know about that. > I think that those who make their living in law enforcement and/or > jurisprudence are people, but I may be wrong - some or all of them may > be sub-human. Such as that isn't mine to decide, nor is it mine to > announce and/or act on - but I can watch and remember. ;) Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities? Why not be straightforward about it to begin with? ~Aimee *reptilian slithering sounds* From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 18 10:08:10 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:08:10 -0700 Subject: rocks In-Reply-To: <3B7E36DB.27061.A7BD1@localhost> Message-ID: <200108181708.f7IH8Kf05941@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 18, 2001, at 09:35 AM, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: > On 18 Aug 2001, at 9:59, Aimee Farr wrote: > > >> I was also taught not to turn over rocks. > > Under rocks is where some of the most intersting stuff is. > > And this is a major difference between men and women. Girls are taught or are inclined not to experiment, not to try new things, not to "turn over rocks." Boys are taught or are inclined to try experiments, to go exploring, to poke at things, to turn over rocks just for the hell of it. I'm deliberately staying away from the "nature vs. nurture" issue, hence the "taught or are inclined to" phrasing. I think there's strong evidence of a biological/hormonal difference, but the effect may also be one of evolutionary pressures. Males are more expendible, for the continuance of a line/tribe, so males can go out and poke at things...this may even lead to new discoveries of use to the line/tribe. Females are the rate-limiter for breeding, so having them be super-cautious and sticking close to home in the cave or the yurt makes sense. I expect this carries over to speech patterns as well: Average male: "Yog, go 4 thuks downstream and check on the bison herd. Report back." (succinct, technical information) Average female: "And I'm like, _whatever_, and that bitch is like "Huh?" and so I go What do you _mean_ girlfriend!," and then she goes --Wilma, the baby's crying again. I'll be back." (sitting around the cave, sewing and patting out tortillas, making soothing gossip and chatter, with an ear cocked for sounds of babies in distress.) Regardless of where it comes from, girls and women are much less willing to explore, on average, than boys and men are. This is very clear with computers, as even feminist writers have acknowledged (the books on "mathphobia" (Tobin) give many examples. There are exceptions, but the causal model above fits pretty closely the outcome of numbers of males vs. females in engineering, programming, etc. (A few women on this list, a few women at the Hackers Conference, a few women pioneers in computers...the list goes on.) Many women are going into law, however, where their babbling goes over well."When in doubt, engage mouth." I know of one a female lawyer larvae who's not like this...she knows who she is. --Tim May From declan at well.com Sat Aug 18 07:25:31 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:25:31 -0400 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com >; from reeza@hawaii.rr.com on Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 12:52:09PM -1000 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <20010818102531.B10513@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 12:52:09PM -1000, Reese wrote, quoting Aimee: > >Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them. > > Cypherpunks don't get the power and sovereign immunity of the reigning > governmental infrastructure to cower behind. > > Show me a proof that no Agent has ever used a remailer, that no Agent > shall ever use a remailer. Of course government agents can and probably will use remailers. Heck, they can pose as journalists, priests, etc. complete with fake ID and cover stories and commit felonies. Using mixmaster is nothing by comparison. The government has created the Onion Routing project expressly to protect the identity of government workers, including agents. Aimee was having fun with you, and I can't exactly blame her. -Declan From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 18 08:27:34 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:27:34 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Does This Article Violate the DMCA? Message-ID: <3B7E8966.35304971@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/18/1411244.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Sat Aug 18 07:28:50 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:28:50 -0400 Subject: Feds patent onion routing (Was: Pentagon Hides Behind Onion Wraps) In-Reply-To: ; from Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de on Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:31:05PM +0200 References: Message-ID: <20010818102850.C10513@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:31:05PM +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46126,00.html The most cypherpunk-relevant bits of my article: Syverson said that the U.S. government was awarded patent number 6,266,704 for Onion Routing on July 24. That announcement prompted an angry reaction from Usenix attendees, many of whom are programmers, security consultants and system administrators who aren't big fans of software patents -- especially in the area of anonymous communications, where there's been so much prior work before the Navy ever got involved. Mathematician David Chaum, for instance, wrote an article titled "Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses and Digital Pseudonyms" for Communications of the ACM as far back as 1981. Lance Cottrell, who now runs anonymizer.com, wrote part of the mixmaster system in the early 1990s, and similar techniques were discussed on the cypherpunks mailing list even earlier. Syverson, who is listed on the patent with co-inventors Michael Reed and David Goldschlag, defended the government's move. "It is a necessary step for those of us working for the government to bring technology to the public," Syverson said. The patent describes Onion Routing, which has been the subject of analysis at previous security conferences, as providing "an electronic communication path between an initiator and a responder on a packet-switching network comprising an onion routing network that safeguards against traffic analysis and eavesdropping by other users of the packet switching network" such as the Internet. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,266,704'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,266,704&RS=PN/6,266,704 -Declan From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 18 08:29:55 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:29:55 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Stem Cell Patent Torpedoes Research Message-ID: <3B7E89F3.F1DDC1F4@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/science/01/08/17/2327217.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 18 08:38:32 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:38:32 -0500 Subject: kuro5hin.org || The Farmer's Wife - Ethnic Cleansing in Zimbabwe Message-ID: <3B7E8BF8.B04629F1@ssz.com> http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/17/95430/2241 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From morlockelloi at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 10:53:53 2001 From: morlockelloi at yahoo.com (Morlock Elloi) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: We are all trolls In-Reply-To: <200108181709.NAA21654@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <20010818175353.208.qmail@web13205.mail.yahoo.com> Trolling accusations presume existance of non-trolling, such as adhering to the charter or statute or some other rules of conduct. That is pathetic. Regardless of what some cal-ideo-libertraians think, the concensus about cpunk charter exists only in their heads. And especially amusingly-pathetic are calls to "read the scripts" (ie. list archives) before one engages the Send button. My sincere "fuck you" to all you gentlemen. An extra gratis "fuck you" to those that mention kill filtering at least once per week. I hope that feds and associate TLAs will gain more presence on cypherpunks. That is the only chance to enhance the intelligence of topics. At least it is a stimulating intellectual exercise when pig is trying to entrap you or seed shit that his handlers prescribe. And often they do have things to say, so much more than regulars, it seems. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From declan at well.com Sat Aug 18 07:59:03 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:59:03 -0400 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818042931.01a9bda0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > References: <20010818102531.B10513@cluebot.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010818105737.02128b70@mail.well.com> At 04:55 AM 8/18/01 -1000, Reese wrote: >What can you exactly blame her for? I can't blame her for taunting not-so-happy and not-very-fun Reese. Spare me the cries of offended dignity; they hardly sound convincing when one has little to begin with. -Declan From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Sat Aug 18 08:43:05 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 11:43:05 -0400 Subject: Friend - Special ANNOUNCEMENT!!!! Message-ID: <200108181543.LAA30450@www.infogeneratorpro.com> Friend- Don't Miss Today's 4 PM Business Opportunity Call on how you can begin to earn $5000-$10000 a Month from home! We have Top Money Earner Dave Savula on the call and Mark Brown! You Will not want to miss this! Join us and invite your guests or prospects to listen in! Call Time: 4:00 pm est Call Number: 1-865-362-4245 Pin: 8520# If your ready to be your own boss and explode your business Be on this call! Invite and load up the call with others who are interested! You can even begin to get paid on Monday! Enjoy and see you on today's call at 4:00 pm Est. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from THIS list: http://usub.net/boLBEFL _________________ OR _______________________ Remove yourself from ALL LISTS at InfoGeneratorPRO: http://usub.net/aoLBEFL Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From akhigbe_3 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 11:59:03 2001 From: akhigbe_3 at yahoo.com (david akhigbe) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 11:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BUSINESS PROPOSAL Message-ID: <20010818185903.6342.qmail@web14809.mail.yahoo.com> FROM: MR,DAVID AKHIGBE T EL: 234 1 759 1549; FAX: 234 1 759 0379. E-MAIL:wazobiac @yahoo.com BUSINESS PROPOSAL ATTN: PRESIDENT / CEO, My name is DAVID AKHIGBE, a member of the Presidential Task Force on Oil Spillage Clean-up. Early last year there was a major oil spillage in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria which rendered over 70% of the communities homeless.The contract was handled by a foreign firm but because of the huge monetary profit we envisaged we decided to over-invoice the contract sum. Now the contract has been completed and the original contractor has since been paid,but the contract balance of US$38 million,which resulted from the over invoiced contract sum that has been left in a suspense account with the CENTRAL BANK of NIGERIA,is what me and my partners are planning to take out of the country for ourselves.The problem is as government officials,we are not suppose to own fat bank accounts,talk less of having foreign ones.To this end, we are soliciting your assistance as a foreign partner who can assist us and receive this amount into your account. We are ready to share this money with you on the basis of participation. We also have plans to invest part of this money in any viable business in your country under your care,as we are nearing our retirement age. In any case, I received a reference of you/organization from the Nigeria Chambers of Commerce and Industry �Foreign Trade Division� as a reputable organ that can assist us on this transaction. Please if you accept my proposal do not hesitate to send me a fax on 234 1 759 0379 or send me an e-mail on: wazobiac at yahoo.com, so that I can provide you with the basic procedures for the release of the fund. It does not matter whether you or your company does contract project of the nature described here, the assumption is that you won a major contract and subcontracted it to another company, more often than not, big trading companies or individuals of unrelated field win major contracts here in Nigeria and subcontracts same to more specialized firms for execution. BENEFIT For providing the account where we shall remit this money, you will be entitled to 25% of the entire funds, 70% will be for me and my partners,while 5% has been set aside to cover any expenses that may be incurred by both parties during this transaction, both local and international. Please I enjoin you to handle this transaction with utmost degree of maturity and confidentiality because I am still in active government service with the �NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION�. If I receive your response on time, this whole transaction could be accomplished within the shortest possible time based on your interest and determination,since the money is already in transit. Please, try to call me up to confirm the receipt of your fax or e-mail.The lines may be busy,but keep trying till you get through. Yours faithfully, MR. DAVID AKHIGBE (MNIM). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Sat Aug 18 12:04:25 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:04:25 -0700 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West Message-ID: <20010818190425.AAA15229+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa. us> http://www.linuxfreak.org/post.php/08/17/2001/134.html -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Sat Aug 18 12:04:25 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:04:25 -0700 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West Message-ID: <20010818190425.AAA15229+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa.us> http://www.linuxfreak.org/post.php/08/17/2001/134.html -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From declan at well.com Sat Aug 18 09:05:09 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:05:09 -0400 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818050143.01d2cc58@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010818105737.02128b70@mail.well.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010818042931.01a9bda0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > <20010818102531.B10513@cluebot.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010818120121.02114570@mail.well.com> At 05:37 AM 8/18/01 -1000, Reese wrote: >Strangely, my dignity was not offended, I think yours is. That you >came (heh) to Aimee's defense indicates what, exactly? Paranoia becomes you. I didn't "come to Aimee's defense" -- I took issue with your post. One can (indeed almost has a moral obligation to) do the latter without engaging in the former. As for Aimee, Tim's criticisms of her have been reasonably accurate. She, as I have pointed out in the past, writes in strangely stilted English, has not done standard things like reading through some of the early cypherpunkish texts before suggesting ostensibly novel topics that have been well-discussed here before, and so on. The difference is that she shows promise -- her posts are becoming more relevant and comprehensible -- and you do not and likely never will. I expect this will be my last post in this sad, Reese-infested thread. -Declan From gurli14 at hotmail.com Sat Aug 18 12:20:53 2001 From: gurli14 at hotmail.com (Anna Dunayev) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:20:53 -0700 Subject: No subject Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 770 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sat Aug 18 03:31:05 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:31:05 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: IP: Pentagon Hides Behind Onion Wraps (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 06:25:51 -0400 From: David Farber Reply-To: farber at cis.upenn.edu To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Pentagon Hides Behind Onion Wraps Seems like the stuff we did at UCI in the 70's under a Darpa contract djf >Pentagon Hides Behind Onion Wraps >By Declan McCullagh > >2:00 a.m. Aug. 17, 2001 PDT > >Onions may be the secret ingredient in protecting the Pentagon's >classified information. > >During an afternoon presentation at the Usenix Security conference on >Thursday, a researcher at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory >described a technology known as "Onion Routing," which preserves >anonymity by wrapping the identity of users in onion-like layers. > >"Public networks are vulnerable to traffic analysis. Packet headers >identify recipients, and packet routes can be tracked," said Paul >Syverson, who works at the NRL's Center for High Assurance Computer >Systems. "Even encrypted data exposes the identity of the >communicating parties." > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46126,00.html For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ From georgemw at speakeasy.net Sat Aug 18 12:47:53 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:47:53 -0700 Subject: Motives In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818063120.01c1ee40@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010818120121.02114570@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <3B7E63F9.13714.BAB8E1@localhost> On 18 Aug 2001, at 6:44, Reese wrote: > > You would be well-advised to question motives, here. What do I gain by > pursuing an address on the legality of posting bomb recipes? Normally I try to avoid such questions, I find it much more significant what people do than why they do it, but this one for some reason has me puzzled. What the hell DO you have to gain? Surely you can't just be hoping to get some cool new recipes that way, there are easier and better ways to do it. As the amputee porn fan put it, I'm stumped. >What does > she gain by quashing all such posts? Why? > I'm easily bamboozled by anything allegedly female, but the impression I get is that she's under the impression more bomb recipies leads to more unwanted scrutiny from LEOs. Personally, I think such ideas are largely mistaken. Nobody ever taught any investigator even vaguely worthy of the name not to look under rocks. I did consider it pretty funny that the assertion that LEOs don't get to hide behind remailers was made right before they announced a patent on their clone of Freedom, but then again, I see humor everywhere. George > Reese From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 18 10:58:17 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:58:17 -0500 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <708605874a9875672c23d1208f4f6d97@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: > It's also rather interesting that Aimee is objecting to > people "cowering behind remailers". On the cypherpunk list? > On the contrary, we should all be using remailers. Someone > seriously does need to start a node which only accepts posts > from remailers. I'm beginning to strongly suspect Aimee as > as troll. See Anderson v. Hale, N.D. Ill., No. 00-C-2021, 05/10/01 ~Aimee From pzakas at toucancapital.com Sat Aug 18 12:00:29 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Zakas, Phillip) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:00:29 -0600 Subject: HA: Feds patent onion routing (Was: Pentagon Hides Behind Onion Wraps) Message-ID: > Declan wrote: > Syverson, who is listed on the patent with co-inventors Michael Reed > and David Goldschlag, defended the government's move. "It is a > necessary step for those of us working for the government to bring > technology to the public," Syverson said. How about simply publishing a paper on the topic (and actually I've been reading papers from the onion router project for several years...since 1996??) Since when were patents necessary to 'bring technology to the public'? From pzakas at toucancapital.com Sat Aug 18 12:00:29 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Zakas, Phillip) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:00:29 -0600 Subject: HA: Feds patent onion routing (Was: Pentagon Hides Behind Onion Wraps) Message-ID: > Declan wrote: > Syverson, who is listed on the patent with co-inventors Michael Reed > and David Goldschlag, defended the government's move. "It is a > necessary step for those of us working for the government to bring > technology to the public," Syverson said. How about simply publishing a paper on the topic (and actually I've been reading papers from the onion router project for several years...since 1996??) Since when were patents necessary to 'bring technology to the public'? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 18 13:05:53 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:05:53 -0700 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818050143.01d2cc58@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010818105737.02128b70@mail.well.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010818042931.01a9bda0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > <20010818102531.B10513@cluebot.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817061916.00e4e260@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <200108181709.NAA21654@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> Somewhere it has been written that it is high chickenshit to post a claim that it will be "my last in the thread" rather than just not shit that last pile and then walk away a little distance to spy who comes to sniff and shit on yours thus requiring yet one more dollop of numero uno grafitti, usually a while later when it can be done without calling attention to mirror-image idiocy of last word authoritarian fart-biters. Still, no chickenshit behavior is more idiotic than plonking and kill-filing and bragging about them and recommending them ad pukem, rather just taking up doily crochet. Time to lay off Jim Choate, too, Sandy, smells like hysteria. And a bad provoke for mass hysteria which breaks out here at the barest of fangs. Which never happened in the golden days of comfort thinking. Hope nobody agrees with this spit bomb. Spit. From anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org Sat Aug 18 10:19:49 2001 From: anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org (An Metet) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:19:49 -0400 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition Message-ID: <708605874a9875672c23d1208f4f6d97@freedom.gmsociety.org> It's also rather interesting that Aimee is objecting to people "cowering behind remailers". On the cypherpunk list? On the contrary, we should all be using remailers. Someone seriously does need to start a node which only accepts posts from remailers. I'm beginning to strongly suspect Aimee as as troll. Faustine is likely another one. Interesting isn't it that she knows so much of what sort of software and capabilites the NSA and FBI have. A lot of this lately has the smell of classic FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt, the essence of government disinformation. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 18 11:21:33 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:21:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Anonymizing Nodes (RE: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition) In-Reply-To: <708605874a9875672c23d1208f4f6d97@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, An Metet wrote: > It's also rather interesting that Aimee is objecting to > people "cowering behind remailers". On the cypherpunk list? > On the contrary, we should all be using remailers. Someone > seriously does need to start a node which only accepts posts > from remailers. What about a CDR node that strips all to:/from: info before sending it out? A 'cypherpunks_anon at ...' w/ replyto: set to itself. Would that be an acceptable approach? It could be made closed so that only subscribers could use it (which implies the info functions would be disabled), or open so that anyone could use it. From newspapier at fromru.com Sat Aug 18 14:07:20 2001 From: newspapier at fromru.com () Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 14:07:20 -0700 Subject: Message-ID: <200108182107.OAA16338@ecotone.toad.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 569 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cash4allofus at hotmail.com Sat Aug 18 15:12:38 2001 From: cash4allofus at hotmail.com (Spinning out of control) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:12:38 Subject: go ahead...check it out. Message-ID: <200108182016.f7IKGcq14034@ak47.algebra.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5779 bytes Desc: not available URL: From keyser-soze at hushmail.com Sat Aug 18 15:12:38 2001 From: keyser-soze at hushmail.com (keyser-soze at hushmail.com) Date: Sat Aug 18 15:12:38 PDT 2001 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West Message-ID: <200108182210.f7IMAVO63611@mailserver1d.hushmail.com> Will someone publish the home address of the prosecuting attorney and judge issuing the warrant? At 12:04 PM 8/18/2001 -0700, you wrote: http://www.linuxfreak.org/post.php/08/17/2001/134.html Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sat Aug 18 21:55:30 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:55:30 -1000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010817112401.033757b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818165738.01bece70@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 04:59 AM 8/18/2001, Aimee Farr wrote: >I wouldn't know about that. >I wouldn't know about that. Why am I not surprised. >> I think that those who make their living in law enforcement and/or >> jurisprudence are people, but I may be wrong - some or all of them may >> be sub-human. Such as that isn't mine to decide, nor is it mine to >> announce and/or act on - but I can watch and remember. ;) > >Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities? Why not be >straightforward about it to begin with? That is straightforward. Did you want me to name names? Why should I? Can't you figure those things out for yourself? >~Aimee >*reptilian slithering sounds* You said it. From news at convention.jagnik.com Sat Aug 18 21:36:34 2001 From: news at convention.jagnik.com (JAGnik) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:36:34 -0700 Subject: JAG: The Show, The Cast and Crew, The Convention Message-ID: <200108191928.f7JJSNq05824@ak47.algebra.com> JAG has just been renewed for another two years. The fans are estatic. JAGnik's around the world prepare to unite for the second JAG Convention known as JAGnik Invasion 2001. Hosted by JAGnik Association, the convention will be held at the Four Points Sheraton LAX and will include Saturday sessions with the main cast, the guest cast, as well as recurring cast members. The Sunday session features the production staff of JAG and the Brunch with the Stars. For more information about the convention visit www.jagnik.com or call 1-800-701-2311. WWW.JAGnik.com contains tons of information about the show, the cast, the crew, the convention, including over 21,000 still images. Soon we will be featuring video clips of apecial appearances by the cast and crew of JAG. For information about the show's episodes use this link http://www.jagnik.com/show/ For information about the cast check this out http://www.jagnik.com/cast/ For information about the crew please use this section http://www.jagnik.com/crew/ For information about the convention look here http://www.jagnik.com/convention/ For information about the newsletter look here http://www.jagnik.com/news_views/currentissue/ Have fun!! We comply with proposed federal legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail by providing you with a method for your e-mail address to be permanently removed from our database and any future mailings from our company. To remove your address from our mailing database please click the following link http://www.jagnik.com/remove.asp?address=cypherpunks at Algebra.COM -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3269 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Big_Hitter at webtv.net Sat Aug 18 14:55:12 2001 From: Big_Hitter at webtv.net (Big_Hitter at webtv.net) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:55:12 +0100 Subject: Dinner Plans Message-ID: <200108190209.f7J29Wq25256@ak47.algebra.com> This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original character set. <> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message.txt URL: From Coolad at coolad.com Sat Aug 18 10:37:57 2001 From: Coolad at coolad.com (Coolad at coolad.com) Date: 18 Aug 2001 23:07:57 +0530 Subject: AFFORDABLE QUALITY WEB DESIGN Message-ID: <0bea05537171281PUNMAIL02@ip.eth.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1542 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sun Aug 19 03:55:12 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 05:55:12 -0500 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <708605874a9875672c23d1208f4f6d97@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: An Metet: > It's also rather interesting that Aimee is objecting to > people "cowering behind remailers". On the cypherpunk list? > On the contrary, we should all be using remailers. Someone > seriously does need to start a node which only accepts posts > from remailers. I'm beginning to strongly suspect Aimee as > as troll. Suspect? Gee, what gave me away? The A team. UNMASKED! > Faustine is likely another one. Interesting isn't > it that she knows so much of what sort of software and capabilites > the NSA and FBI have. A lot of this lately has the smell > of classic FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt, the essence > of government disinformation. The B team. Slides in behind the A team.... Think they sent us to come put a stop to all the subversive code being written in here? Yes, it's true, we waited until 2001 to infiltrate your "email list" with Jezebel Women and compromise your leaders. Our mission? To secure positions of power and influence to prepare for the coming of "crypto-anarchy." Ah, but we didn't count on the highly-developed counterintelligence skillset of cypherpunk list members, much less the CPUNKOPSEC team led by An Metat. That blew us up. You win. We give up. If you let us go, we'll give you back your biometrics (we've got them all, including keystroke dynamics - no, we don't need a keylogger), language identifiers and friendship trees. We'll also release our hostages, and give you the antidotes to our love potions -- but only in exchange for Choate. We want to express our appreciation for the intelligence, and the ideas, that you have provided the U.S. Government with over the years. This list has been one of our most successful ops. However, we discovered the list is no longer an asset. You stopped writing code and turned into a bitch-tank full of bomb-talk and bimbo-bashing. (We're da guvmint, we know how to make bombs, bitch and bimbo better than you do.) You're not giving us good ideas. It's all "well-trod ground," you see? Everything we need is in the archives. So, sadly, we must part ways, pending certain "administrative paperwork." ~Aimee PS: Listen to the remailer guy. He's here to help. From special077 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 07:26:49 2001 From: special077 at hotmail.com (special) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 07:26:49 Subject: WEBBASED DISK SPACE Message-ID: <200108191224.f7JCOfq02372@ak47.algebra.com> LARGE WEBBASED DISK FOR YOUR: PICTURES BACKUP CORPORATE DATA PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL DATA OFFLINE PC DISK STORAGE HTML CODE(WEBPAGE) MORE INFO mailto:special078 at hotmail.com?subject=moreinformation REMOVE mailto:special079 at hotmail.com?subject=REMOVE From rickan2000 at hotmail.com Sun Aug 19 02:26:50 2001 From: rickan2000 at hotmail.com (rickan glueckstein) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:26:50 +0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: unsubscrib cyperpunks-unedited _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From bear at sonic.net Sun Aug 19 11:08:11 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West In-Reply-To: <200108182210.f7IMAVO63611@mailserver1d.hushmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Aug -1 keyser-soze at hushmail.com wrote: >Will someone publish the home address of the prosecuting attorney and judge issuing the warrant? > There are serious risks in doing so. Having such a post linked to your meatspace identity could result in persecution - and most likely eventually prosecution as well. Bear From f.andeyro at arkion.es Sun Aug 19 03:17:32 2001 From: f.andeyro at arkion.es (Francisco Andeyro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 12:17:32 +0200 Subject: Cypher...what?... Message-ID: <000301c12898$68bdbe10$0100a8c0@ArkionCasa> Hi Friends...! This a msg to know if there is somebody out there talking about cyphering, 'cause i subscribed to the group a few days ago, and i'm receving only spam... So please... tell me if somebody interested in cyphers is here listening... othewise, i'll unsubscribe... Best Regards. Franciso Andeyro García From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 19 11:05:05 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 13:05:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CDR Anonymizer Message-ID: I've added a feature to the SSZ node. It consists of a simple procmail script that rips the source fields out of the headers. It then forwards the email to the SSZ node. Submissions to the anonymizer should be sent to, cpunks_anon at einstein.ssz.com Your From:, Cc:, and Bcc: fields will be stripped. Create your account and drop the following in, /home/cpunks_anon/.forward "|IFS=' '&&exec /usr/bin/procmail -f-||exit 75 #cpunks_anon" /home/cpunks_anon/.procmailrc PATH=/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin/ MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail #DEFAULT=$MAILDIR/received DEFAULT=/dev/null LOGFILE=$MAILDIR/procmail.log :0: * ^X-Loop:.*ssz.com /dev/null :0 fhw | formail -I "From: " :0 fhw | formail -I "Cc: " :0 fhw | formail -I "Bcc: " :0 c !mail_list at where -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From YAZEED51 at ogertel.com Sun Aug 19 03:23:41 2001 From: YAZEED51 at ogertel.com ( ) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 13:23:41 +0300 Subject: No subject Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2548 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jya at pipeline.com Sun Aug 19 14:28:22 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:28:22 -0700 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West In-Reply-To: References: <200108182210.f7IMAVO63611@mailserver1d.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <200108191834.OAA32066@granger.mail.mindspring.net> The name of the prosecuting attorney is on the plea bargain sent to Brian, copy below. I agree that this kind of once-okay data-mining and publishing will now get you Bell-jarred, CJ-jugged. --- Full listing of Brian West case files: http://www.bkw.org/pdf/ From: http://www.bkw.org/pdf/usdoj-letter.txt BKW: (NOTICE: Any spelling errors would be mine.. I think I have it exactly as it was sent to me. I will have it in PDF format when I nerves are better!) U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Eastern District of Oklahoma 1200 West Okmulgee Muskogee, Oklahoma 74401 (918) 684-5100 Main Fax (918) 684-5130 Criminal Fax (918) 684-5150 August 14, 2001 Brian West 714 E. Osage McAlester, OK 74501 Fax: 918-967-2859 VIA FAX Dear Mr. West: This letter is sent pursuant to our conversation of yesterday. You indicated to me that you are currently unrepresented in this matter. If that is untrue, or if you eventually obtain representation, please have your attorney contact me as soon as possible. You are incited to appear before the Grand jury on about September 5, 2001 to answer questions regarding your involvment in alleged illegal activity. Whether or not you decided to appear before the grand jury is completely up to you. Please let me know as soon as possible, but by no later than August 24, 2001, in writing, whether or not you desire to appear before the grand jury, and the invitation will be withdrawn. Futhermore, it is prudent that all of our communications occur in writing, so please note I will henceforth decline to speak with you on the telephone. Pursuant to Department of Justice Policy, the folling advice of rights is provided for your information: ADVICE OF RIGHTS 1. The grand jury for the Easter District of Oklahoma is conducting an investigation of possible violations of Federal Criminal Law innvolving a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030, and other violations. You are the target of this investigation. 2. You may refuse to answer any questions if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you. 3. Anything that you do or say may be used against you by the Grand Jury or in subsequent legal proceeding. 4. If you have retained counsel, the Grand Jury will premit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the Grand Jury room to consult with counsel if you so desire. Whether to retain an attorney is entirely your decission; however, I must emphasize that this is a serious matter. The advice of an attorney may be of great assistance. If you do retain an attorney, please advise me of that fact soon as possible. Also the government would be willing to resolve this matter at this juncture if you agreed to plead guilty to one violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030. As part of the agreement the government would stipulate that your sentence should be probation. Please let me know, in writing, as soon as possible, whether or not you wish to resolve this matter pursuant to plea agreement. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call FBI Special Agent Gary Graff. I believe a prompt resolution of this matter is in everyone's best interest. Sincerly yours, SHELDON J. SPERLING United States Attorney (Signed Jeff Gallant) ---------------------------- JEFF GALLANT Assistant United States Attorney ----- From Funkymonkey323 at cs.com Sun Aug 19 12:18:16 2001 From: Funkymonkey323 at cs.com (Funkymonkey323 at cs.com) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:18:16 EDT Subject: REMOVE Message-ID: <8d.b2c4b13.28b16af8@cs.com> From gbroiles at well.com Sun Aug 19 18:15:09 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:15:09 -0700 Subject: HA: Feds patent onion routing (Was: Pentagon Hides Behind Onion Wraps) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010819180327.035b0410@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 01:00 PM 8/18/2001 -0600, Zakas, Phillip wrote: > > Declan wrote: > > Syverson, who is listed on the patent with co-inventors >Michael Reed > > and David Goldschlag, defended the government's move. "It is a > > necessary step for those of us working for the government to >bring > > technology to the public," Syverson said. > > How about simply publishing a paper on the topic (and actually >I've been reading papers from the onion router project for several >years...since 1996??) Since when were patents necessary to 'bring >technology to the public'? That was my first reaction to those comments. I think what they're talking about is the process of "technology transfer", whereby people are paid by the government to develop new technology, then quit their low-risk low-pay government jobs for private sector jobs commercializing the technology they developed earlier, selling implemented, commercial (or mil-spec) versions back to the government. (One variation of this has the developers handing off the technology to old college friends or agency predecessors, who are generous enough to grant them stock options in the private company). It's much easier to commercialize the technology if it's boiled down to one or more forms of traditional intellectual property, like patents - it was only attractive to invest in open-souce companies for a year or so, and that was a few years ago. If you hurry, you can still buy some Red Hat stock before it gets delisted, which has got some old cypherpunk C2Net and Cygnus DNA in it somewhere. If they want to make the technology widely understood and used, that's easy - write up a nice paper for Crypto or FC or one of the ACM or IEEE journals, with a corresponding project on Sourceforge. It's not like federally developed works even need a license - they're not properly the subject of copyright. On the other hand, if they want to make big piles of money selling that technology back to the taxpayers who funded its development, locking it up for 20 years isn't such a silly choice. This strategy is an especially nice one for privacy technologies like remailers - there's no good consumer market for them, but governments and other big actors have a strong need to hide their actions from public scrutiny from time to time, because they've got a lot more to lose by getting caught. So it's a neat little commercial backwater where it ought to be possible to charge a few customers a lot of money for technology they can't buy anywhere else because (a) it's not widely understood or available, and (b) the vendor has an exclusive patent license, and can eliminate competitors. (free software isn't a competitor, because anonymizing is a service, not a product or a computer program, so it doesn't matter if there are infringing cypherpunk versions.) -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From responder at join4free.com Sun Aug 19 12:02:15 2001 From: responder at join4free.com (Join4Free.Com) Date: 19 Aug 2001 19:02:15 -0000 Subject: Welcome to Join4Free.Com Message-ID: <20010819190215.32324.qmail@wwwb4.join4free.com> Thank you for signing up to Join4Free.Com. As a member of Join4Free.Com you will receive: 1) Unlimited Access to Join4Free.Com and all sister sites. 2) A daily adult newsletter with free photos and many other FREE & Special Offers. 3) Special promotional offers from our affiliates (Optinmail.cc). Your email address is secure with us and will only be used through our own network of promotional offers. We will never rent or sell your email to outside marketing agencies. Before your membership is active, please visit the following link so that we may verify this is your correct e-mail address: http://www.join4free.com/quickvalidate.html?c=uRGDafghHIJK&i=3974301 Note: If clicking on the link does not work, please copy and paste it into your web browser. Below is your info: Username: cypherpunks at toad.com Password: cypherpunks IMPORTANT: Enter your username exactly as it appears above, it should be your complete email address. Once you validate your membership, you can visit our sister sites as well. Our sister sites include: * http://www.join4free.com/ * http://amateurs.join4free.com/ * http://asians.join4free.com/ * http://lesbians.join4free.com/ * http://gay.join4free.com/ * http://teens.join4free.com/ Sincerely, Join4Free.Com Staff -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3633 bytes Desc: not available URL: From responder at join4free.com Sun Aug 19 12:06:36 2001 From: responder at join4free.com (Join4Free.Com) Date: 19 Aug 2001 19:06:36 -0000 Subject: Welcome to Join4Free.Com Message-ID: <20010819190636.5756.qmail@wwwb3.join4free.com> Thank you for signing up to Join4Free.Com. As a member of Join4Free.Com you will receive: 1) Unlimited Access to Join4Free.Com and all sister sites. 2) A daily adult newsletter with free photos and many other FREE & Special Offers. 3) Special promotional offers from our affiliates (Optinmail.cc). Your email address is secure with us and will only be used through our own network of promotional offers. We will never rent or sell your email to outside marketing agencies. Before your membership is active, please visit the following link so that we may verify this is your correct e-mail address: http://www.join4free.com/quickvalidate.html?c=WT3UrstyUV13&i=3974339 Note: If clicking on the link does not work, please copy and paste it into your web browser. Below is your info: Username: cypherpunks at toad.com Password: cypherpunks IMPORTANT: Enter your username exactly as it appears above, it should be your complete email address. Once you validate your membership, you can visit our sister sites as well. Our sister sites include: * http://www.join4free.com/ * http://amateurs.join4free.com/ * http://asians.join4free.com/ * http://lesbians.join4free.com/ * http://gay.join4free.com/ * http://teens.join4free.com/ Sincerely, Join4Free.Com Staff -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3633 bytes Desc: not available URL: From QuTi0 at aol.com Sun Aug 19 16:12:40 2001 From: QuTi0 at aol.com (QuTi0 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 19:12:40 EDT Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <16.10ffa2ce.28b1a1e8@aol.com> unsubscrib cyperpunks-unedited -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 92 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Libe78 at aol.com Sun Aug 19 16:45:23 2001 From: Libe78 at aol.com (Libe78 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 19:45:23 EDT Subject: about som good stuff Message-ID: <119.3737a32.28b1a993@aol.com> i wood like to c get in touch wit yue so e mail me it will be alot of fun From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sun Aug 19 23:00:28 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:00:28 -1000 Subject: Motives In-Reply-To: <3B7E63F9.13714.BAB8E1@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010818063120.01c1ee40@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > <5.0.2.1.0.20010818120121.02114570@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010819195419.00ca7950@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 09:47 AM 8/18/01, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: >On 18 Aug 2001, at 6:44, Reese wrote: > > >> >> You would be well-advised to question motives, here. What do >> I gain by pursuing an address on the legality of posting bomb >> recipes? > >Normally I try to avoid such questions, I find it >much more significant what people do than why >they do it, but this one for some >reason has me puzzled. What the hell DO you have to gain? >Surely you can't just be hoping to get some cool new recipes that >way, there are easier and better ways to do it. >As the amputee porn fan put it, I'm stumped. We assume the lamerz posting "h3lp m3 m4k3 b0mZ" queries are LEA's trolling, but are they? Is posting bomb recipes a violation of some applicable law? If so, what law? If not, why do we assume those to be LEA trolls, and not some hopeless wank or kook who needs to get in touch with HisOrHer inner child and beat it up? Quite simply, I'm curious and want to know. >>What does >> she gain by quashing all such posts? Why? >> > >I'm easily bamboozled by anything allegedly female, but >the impression I get is that she's under the impression >more bomb recipies leads to more unwanted scrutiny from >LEOs. > >Personally, I think such ideas are largely mistaken. Nobody >ever taught any investigator even vaguely worthy of the name not to >look under rocks. Indeed, in the hidden away places is where the most interesting things are found. >I did consider it pretty funny that the assertion that LEOs don't get >to hide behind remailers was made right before they announced >a patent on their clone of Freedom, but then again, I see humor >everywhere. All things are funny, when viewed in the right light. ;) Reese From cell_phone_fun582919 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 18:08:11 2001 From: cell_phone_fun582919 at yahoo.com (cell_phone_fun582919 at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:08:11 -0500 Subject: make your cell phone ring to a song 582919 Message-ID: <200206220642.BAA09232@einstein.ssz.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 8290 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mc7 at export2000.ro Sun Aug 19 10:10:17 2001 From: mc7 at export2000.ro (mc7 at export2000.ro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:10:17 +0300 Subject: Romanian Business Opportunity Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/plain charset=us-ascii Size: 2868 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mc7 at export2000.ro Sun Aug 19 10:10:21 2001 From: mc7 at export2000.ro (mc7 at export2000.ro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:10:21 +0300 Subject: Romanian Business Opportunity Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/plain charset=us-ascii Size: 2869 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pth at ibuc.com Sun Aug 19 21:11:13 2001 From: pth at ibuc.com (Paul Harrison) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:11:13 -0700 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West References: <200108182210.f7IMAVO63611@mailserver1d.hushmail.com> <200108191834.OAA32066@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <3B808DE1.4120BC2B@ibuc.com> Happily a nice, forward thinking Tulsa law firm has done the work for all concerned and interested citizens. "Tilly & Fitzgerald is engaged in a general civil practice, including trial and appellate work in all state and federal courts... " Tilly & Fitzgerald employs state of the art technology in the practice of law, increasing the speed and efficiency of our ability to serve client needs. From document assembly to computer graphics to electronic research, our attorneys are able to utilize the power and convenience of computers and the internet to better serve our clients in a competitive environment." Partner James W. (Jim) Tilly, has graciously posted the business, home and spousal contact information for _all_ of his fellow TU Lawschool Class of '79 reunion mateys at: >The name of the prosecuting attorney is on the plea bargain >sent to Brian, copy below. >> blah, blah, blah... >> I believe a prompt resolution >> of this matter is in everyone's best interest. >> >> Sincerly yours, >> SHELDON J. SPERLING >> United States Attorney ...and TU Law '79. Now here a conundrum for Mr. Sperling, Esquire: If your classmate's web homepage doesn't directly link to the page with your home address, home phone, wife's name, etc. then does the fact that Google's spiders and bots finked you out (probably because your dearly beloved classmates linked to the page from their own vanity home pages) constitute intentional unauthorized access to a protected computer system under 18 USC 1030a2C? From keyser-soze at hushmail.com Sun Aug 19 22:21:53 2001 From: keyser-soze at hushmail.com (keyser-soze at hushmail.com) Date: Sun Aug 19 22:21:53 PDT 2001 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West Message-ID: <200108192220.f7JMKTd19583@mailserver1a> At Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT), Ray Dillinger wrote: > > >On Sat, 18 Aug -1 keyser-soze at hushmail.com wrote: > >>Will someone publish the home address of the prosecuting attorney and judge issuing the warrant? >> > >There are serious risks in doing so. Having such a post linked >to your meatspace identity could result in persecution - and >most likely eventually prosecution as well. An exercise left to the eventual poster. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From keyser-soze at hushmail.com Sun Aug 19 22:34:23 2001 From: keyser-soze at hushmail.com (keyser-soze at hushmail.com) Date: Sun Aug 19 22:34:23 PDT 2001 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West Message-ID: <200108192233.f7JMX2M19944@mailserver1a> At 02:28 PM 8/19/2001 -0700, John Young wrote: >The name of the prosecuting attorney is on the plea bargain >sent to Brian, copy below. > >I agree that this kind of once-okay data-mining and publishing >will now get you Bell-jarred, CJ-jugged. Only if identified and then only if you are U.S. property. I wonder how many of those on this list, who profess competence in such matters and agreement with the principle, would be willing to put their skills to the test and able to succeed. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From throwaway1 at hushmail.com Sun Aug 19 23:06:33 2001 From: throwaway1 at hushmail.com (throwaway1 at hushmail.com) Date: Sun Aug 19 23:06:33 PDT 2001 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West Message-ID: <200108200605.f7K65ei14733@mailserver1b.hushmail.com> You mean... Home: Rt. 3 Box 266 B, Wagoner, OK 74467 Home Phone: 918-485-8764 Spouse: Marvetta Sperling Business: U.S. Dept of Justice, 333 Federal Court House Muskogee, OK 74401 Business Phone: 918-687-2543 Fax: 918-684-5150 Course one would have to wait round til Sheldon showd and foller him home Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From cupid at adultfriendfinder.com Sun Aug 19 16:54:42 2001 From: cupid at adultfriendfinder.com (cupid at adultfriendfinder.com) Date: 19 Aug 2001 23:54:42 -0000 Subject: Adult Friend Finder Cupid Report for oddodoodo Message-ID: <20010819235442.4089.qmail@e114.friendfinder.com> Dear oddodoodo, The following are some of the recent members that match your Cupid search on the Adult Friend Finder web site located at http://adultfriendfinder.com Match 1 HANDLE: nympho1976 TITLE: "This is your lucky day" PROFILE: http://adultfriendfinder.com/cupid/12466944_99714 LOCATION: Charlotte, North Carolina, United States GENDER: AGE: 25 You have a total of 1 new matches on Adult Friend Finder! Standard members only get up to 5 matches per email - more on site... Gold members get up to 20 matches sent. Upgrade today! To change your Cupid profile or to turn off the reports, just logon to Cupid and click on the "Update your Profile" link on the main page. Have a website? Click http://adultfriendfinder.com/go/pa to learn how to make big money by referring members to Adultfriendfinder.com. Thanks, The Adult Friend Finder Team "Tell a friend about adultfriendfinder.com!" ******** Other excellent sites by Adult Friend Finder ********* http://alt.com - BDSM/Fetish personals http://outpersonals.com - gay sex personals http://likemynudephoto.com - rate your photos http://nudecards.com - Send your friend a spicy free ecard! http://slutpost.com - 1000s of free hot photos! http://adultfriendfinder.com/karas/ - Preferred hot adult site http://dine.com - Find a great restaurant for your date! *************************************************************** Adult Friend Finder is anti-spam. This email is sent to you as this email address is associated with the opt-in member "oddodoodo" on http://adultfriendfinder.com. To remove yourself from the mailing list, please log into Adultfriendfinder.com with your handle and password. *************************************************************** From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Aug 19 15:56:18 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:56:18 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [consume-thenet] Airsnort out for prism-2 chipset wireless cards(fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:08:53 -0400 From: Adam Burns Reply-To: consume-thenet at lists.consume.net, vortex at free2air.net To: consume-thenet at lists.consume.net Subject: [consume-thenet] Airsnort out for prism-2 chipset wireless cards Some people were predicting this would be out within the week, and here it is ... Airsnort [ http://airsnort.sourceforge.net/ ] will sniff & decode WEP streams, regardless of key length. See free2air posted story http://www.free2air.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/8/16/105015/351 for further details. .vortex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: consume-thenet-unsubscribe at lists.consume.net For additional commands, e-mail: consume-thenet-help at lists.consume.net From drevil at sidereal.kz Sun Aug 19 18:18:01 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 20 Aug 2001 01:18:01 -0000 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20010820011801.640.qmail@sidereal.kz> > Think they sent us to come put a stop to all the subversive code being > written in here? Who on this list has time to write code? We have important things to discuss, like what kind of explosives work best, what kind of bullets pierce what kind of armor, and what you should grab when the Feds break in to your house to install a keyboard bug! (I have typed this message using the tip of my nose to avoid keyboard timing biometric identification, and fingerprints.) From dave at technopagan.org Sun Aug 19 22:56:24 2001 From: dave at technopagan.org (David E. Smith) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 05:56:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: lawyerpunks-in-training...? [OT?] Message-ID: This is a fairly big list, and there aren't very many lawyerpunks on it. (And they all seem to be tied up arguing with Choate. :-) For a host of reasons only peripherally related to things like CJ, Jim Bell, my own brief experience running a remailer, et cetera, I've begun to seriously consider law school. If nothing else, it's a great way to defer paying on those student loans for another few years... So, in vaguely-random order: * How does one decide whether law school is what they want to do? In a broader sense, how do you decide whether you want to be a lawyer when you grow up? The lawyers on the list are definitely encouraged to respond. * Is there really a need for technically-inclined lawyers? In my far-from- expert opinion, there seems to be a shortage of them... After I'm done, will I still be able to afford Ramen? (Bear in mind that I have no interest in becoming an ambulance-chaser. Not gonna go there.) * How will my undergraduate studies come back to haunt me? (My overall GPA was good but not great, and my Bachelor's is in computer science, instead of a more traditional prelaw field.) * Recommendations of lawyerpunk-friendly law schools? thanks! ...dave ---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151 http://www.technopagan.org/ http://metadave.net/ http://www.bureau42.com/ http://whatIsay.com/ "Use anger to throw them into disarray." -- Sun Tzu From dave at technopagan.org Sun Aug 19 22:56:24 2001 From: dave at technopagan.org (David E. Smith) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 05:56:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: lawyerpunks-in-training...? [OT?] Message-ID: This is a fairly big list, and there aren't very many lawyerpunks on it. (And they all seem to be tied up arguing with Choate. :-) For a host of reasons only peripherally related to things like CJ, Jim Bell, my own brief experience running a remailer, et cetera, I've begun to seriously consider law school. If nothing else, it's a great way to defer paying on those student loans for another few years... So, in vaguely-random order: * How does one decide whether law school is what they want to do? In a broader sense, how do you decide whether you want to be a lawyer when you grow up? The lawyers on the list are definitely encouraged to respond. * Is there really a need for technically-inclined lawyers? In my far-from- expert opinion, there seems to be a shortage of them... After I'm done, will I still be able to afford Ramen? (Bear in mind that I have no interest in becoming an ambulance-chaser. Not gonna go there.) * How will my undergraduate studies come back to haunt me? (My overall GPA was good but not great, and my Bachelor's is in computer science, instead of a more traditional prelaw field.) * Recommendations of lawyerpunk-friendly law schools? thanks! ...dave ---- David E. Smith, POB 515045, St. Louis MO 63151 http://www.technopagan.org/ http://metadave.net/ http://www.bureau42.com/ http://whatIsay.com/ "Use anger to throw them into disarray." -- Sun Tzu From dynastyprise at chestertel.com Mon Aug 20 03:49:19 2001 From: dynastyprise at chestertel.com (dynastyprise at chestertel.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 06:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: STOP THEM!!!!!!!! Message-ID: <01K7CJ5PXI2O9EE8RT@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net> Bill Collector's a Problem. They don't have to be. Stop them NOW..... Go to http:/www.webspawner.com/users/dynastyprise/index.html From sfurlong at acmenet.net Mon Aug 20 05:00:57 2001 From: sfurlong at acmenet.net (Steve Furlong) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:00:57 -0500 Subject: lawyerpunks-in-training...? Message-ID: Dave Smith asked about law schools for Cypherpunks. I've been in law school for the past year. I work as a programmer and am interested in c- punk issues, so I guess I'm a cypherpunk. I signed up for Concord University School of Law (http://www.concordlawschool.com/default.htm) mostly because it seemed cool to get a law degree over the web, not because I had any use for it. After I signed up, I thought of a few things I could do with a law degree, such as beat up on lawyers who were beating up on free software projects. The program takes four years of "part time" study if you wish to take the bar afterward, or three years if you just want a JD. As regards my plan to provide pro bono assistance to small, belabored free software teams, it turns out it's not that simple. As best I've been able to determine, If I'm living in State X and I'm licensed to practice in State X and the team is in State X, I can defend them. If the team is in State Y, I could get nailed for unauthorized practice of law in State Y. Even if the Evil Corporation which is beating up on them is in State X, I might not be able to legally (no pun intended) help. This is based on discussions with my professors and deans and with questions asked of the bar offices in several states. Concord is not an ABA-accredited law school, so at the moment you can take only the California bar exam. Once you pass the Cal bar, you can practice in Cal, Vermont, and IIRC Wisconsin. You can also practice, even without a law degree, in Arizona. Since I have no desire to live in California, using my example above I'd be living in State X and licensed to practice in State Y, and for the most part I wouldn't be able to do any legal services, though that varies by state of residence. I can discuss the pros and cons of Concord vis a vis brick and mortar law schools if anyone is interested. Short summary, Concord has the advantage of flexibility (study when and where you like) and cost (approx US$5K per year rather than $18-30K for a b-and-m); disadvantage is lack of ABA accreditation. I've been working as a programmer while in school. The amount of time required for studies was greater than expected, but doable. The problem I've found is the loss of creative mental energy on the job. I can do the rote work with no problem, but don't have the mental energy to come up the innovative solutions I'm paid for. Caveat: I'm a single parent of a 6 year old boy; that'll suck the energy out of anyone, haha. If you're going to go to law school full time, that shouldn't be a problem; look at some of the chowderheads who have made it through, after all. As for the broader issues Dave brought up: Yes there is a need for lawyers with a technical bent. There's a well-known link between lack of mathematical ability and entry to law school, and the innumeracy of the typical lawyer is often a problem when technical issues come up. (ref, the judge in the DVD CCA v 2600 case) Law school is usually very expensive. Including living expenses, figure on adding US$100K to your debt burden if you go full time. You said you won't want to be an ambulance chaser, but odds are you'll have to take a job with a firm for several years and work on what you're assigned, just to pay down the debt. You might also want to consider that there is a glut of lawyers in the US. First year associate salaries at top firms are still good, but if you don't get into a top firm the pay might not be that great. There are also a lot of unemployed lawyers out there, despite the best efforts of the Lawyers Full Employment legislative and judicial teams. Most law schools now have courses on intellectual property and internet law, so they're sorta c-punk friendly that way. Law professors tend to be quite liberal on political and economic issues, and the libertarian bent of most c-punks is a serious irritant to them. I've heard of that being more of an issue in a brick-and-mortar school, where you sit in class and get interrogated by the prof. Regards, SRF From frissell at panix.com Mon Aug 20 04:09:38 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:09:38 -0400 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West In-Reply-To: References: <200108182210.f7IMAVO63611@mailserver1d.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010820070244.009f04a0@frissell@brillig.panix.com> At 11:08 AM 8/19/01 -0700, you wrote: >On Sat, 18 Aug -1 keyser-soze at hushmail.com wrote: > > >Will someone publish the home address of the prosecuting attorney and > judge issuing the warrant? > > > >There are serious risks in doing so. Having such a post linked >to your meatspace identity could result in persecution - and >most likely eventually prosecution as well. > > Bear Not if you read NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware or Judge Kozinski's 9th Circuit decision in Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Williamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists. Publishing addresses is legal. James did a little more and did not put on a strong defense and we don't know if he's doing a strong appeal. DCF From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 20 05:46:41 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:46:41 -0500 Subject: kuro5hin.org || Proposed expansion of DNA testing in Virginia Message-ID: <3B8106B1.20A5BE68@ssz.com> http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/19/191851/368 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 20 05:50:22 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:50:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Fw: [ISN] Student 'soldiers' help feds fight cyberterrorism (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "InfoSec News" To: Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:49 AM Subject: [ISN] Student 'soldiers' help feds fight cyberterrorism > http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/tech/news/1012562 > > Knight Ridder Tribune > Aug. 18, 2001 > > TULSA, Okla. -- The first group of cyberterrorism students reporting > for "duty" this week at the University of Tulsa pulls together an > eclectic mix of computer talent. > > The 14 students were hand-picked as part of the University of Tulsa's > $5 million federally funded program to conduct cyberterrorism research > and to help develop "soldiers" for a national "cybercorps." > > The university was designated as a Center for Information Security by > the National Security Agency. The NSA has designated 14 such centers > at public and private schools across the United States, including > Carnegie Mellon University, Iowa State University, Purdue University, > the University of Idaho and the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, > Calif. > > The University of Tulsa cadets have qualified for full scholarships > for master's or bachelor's degrees in computer science, said John > Hale, a TU computer science professor and a co-director of TU's Center > for Information Security. > > The students are expected to graduate in two years, and then to work > for the federal government for two years. TU's fall 2001 semester > begins Monday. > > The group includes graduate student Julie Evans, 42. The working > mother said she enrolled in her first computer programming course in > 1975, when Apple was just a seed. Determined to graduate, she attended > night classes for 21 years, finishing her computer science degree at > the University of Central Oklahoma in 1998, she said. > > "This is a dream come true for me," said Evans, who became intrigued > by computers as a sophomore in Colorado. "It's my turn. I finally get > to go full time. It won't take 21 years to finish this degree." > > Student Howard Barnes, 63, retired from Boeing Corp. in 1995 as a > software engineer. Barnes, a Kansan with a bachelor's degree in > physics, said he thought it was "time for a change." He and his wife > of 44 years, Joyce, are moving to Tulsa. > > Another "cadet," 30-year-old Rick Ayers, played lead guitar for the > rock group Apache Rain. > > Ayers is a TU senior majoring in computer information systems. He > toured the western United States with Apache Rain until 1993, covering > songs from the '60s through the early '90s. > > TU has also recruited younger students such as Brett Edgar, 20, Ryan > Larson, 20, and Kris Daley, 21. All are computer science > undergraduates with sterling grades in math and computer science. > > Edgar, of Tulsa, said he learned to program in Logo and Apple Basics > when he was in first grade in 1987. Larson said he programmed a > calculator at age 13. > > "The common element among all of them is their commitment to national > service," Hale said. "In addition to their qualifications, we were > looking for students with a commitment to a national goal of > controlling or eliminating cyberterrorism." > > The research will involve developing network firewalls and detection > systems to protect telephone, banking and other critical > communications systems connected to the Internet. > > Problems with hackers and attacks such as that carried out by the > recent Code Red worm underscore the urgent need for better defenses, > Hale said. > > > > - > ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org > > To unsubscribe email majordomo at attrition.org with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY > of the mail. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 20 05:50:56 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:50:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Fw: IE5.x users beware - sites can monitor your clipboard! (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "RTN" To: Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 1:09 AM Subject: FYI: IE5.x users beware - sites can monitor your clipboard! > =========[ r t s / n y c ]======== > Another reason to dump your micro$oft software: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:51:46 +0200 > From: rene at xs4all.nl > To: discussion at hippiesfromhell.org > Subject: FYI: IE5.x users beware - sites can monitor your clipboard! > > The reason for this post is that I think it might be interesting for some > websites to > start to collect the clipboards that employees of NGOs or activists are using. > > Yesyes, I just browsed to http://snoop.anonymizer.com/cgi-bin/peleus.cgi to get > some > info, and saw that my new IE5.x browser actually makes my CLIPBOARD available to > the > site I'm currently viewing... > > Since I find this a privacy/security concern for specific groups of people, I > thought > I might share with you on how to disable this 'feature'... > > (this done on Win2000 with english IE5) > > in techinese: > menu: Tools | Internet Options > tab: Security > select: Internet icon > button: Custom Level > under "scripting" set "allow paste operations via script" to 'disable' or > 'prompt' > > in english: > Click on the "Tools" menu at the top of any browser window, Click on "Internet > Options". > Click on the "Security" tab, top of the window > Click on the "Internet" icon > Click on the button "Custom level" > Find the item in the list that has "scripting" as its 1st-level description > Under that, set "allow paste operations via script" to 'disable' or 'prompt'. > > Please spread this message to whereever you feel appropriate; I'd appreciate if > IT-managers of NGOs such as amnesty etc are notified. > > > ********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE ********** > > ReclaimThe.Net! http://reclaimthe.net > --------------------------------------------------------- > Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net > Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch > > > > ================================ > to unsubscribe, write "lists at tao.ca" with "unsubscribe rtsnyc" as the body > of the message. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 20 05:51:22 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:51:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Fw: AirSnort 0.0.9 (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 2:20 AM Subject: AirSnort 0.0.9 > AirSnort 0.0.9 > by Blake Hegerle (http://freshmeat.net/users/laertes00/) > Saturday, August 18th 2001 02:09 > > Categories: Security :: Cryptography, System :: Networking :: Monitoring > > About: AirSnort is a wireless LAN (WLAN) tool that recovers encryption > keys. It operates by passively monitoring transmissions, computing the > encryption key when enough packets have been gathered. > > Changes: This is the initial release. AirSnort will work for both 40 or 128 > bit encryption. > > License: GNU General Public License (GPL) > > URL: http://freshmeat.net/projects/airsnort/ > > > -- > Elias Levy > SecurityFocus.com > http://www.securityfocus.com/ > Si vis pacem, para bellum > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA) > Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which > automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see: > https://alerts.securityfocus.com/ From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Aug 19 23:40:55 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:40:55 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <20010820011801.640.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: On 20 Aug 2001, Dr. Evil wrote: > Who on this list has time to write code? We have important things to Good coders are rare, and since extremely busy, are essentially invisible. If there's one present, somehow: you go back to your coding pen right now ere you get hooked on idle chitchat. > discuss, like what kind of explosives work best, what kind of bullets Apart from being fun, explosives are extremely useful, in precision material processing, geoimaging, as easily mobilizable scalable energy conserve, research (HE-driven flux compressors for pure fusion devices, nuclear device core assembly, and the like). Getting the geometry and the timing right in your hydrodynamics model is still what feds at Sandia and elsewhere are occupied with, and I don't think they're done yet. So, getting a spitting hissyfit over "bomb talk" shows of ignorance and intolerance both. So phhtphpthtpth. > pierce what kind of armor, and what you should grab when the Feds > break in to your house to install a keyboard bug! Come on, rigging your flat with active and passive tripwire type intrusion detectors, and switching to an emission poor system (chucking CRT for LCD would do plenty for starters) will make you know they've been there, and if they go to the trouble of finding and disable offsite streamed video feeds (all of them?) you're in deep doodoo land, anyway. Siccing this type of specialist on a random geek just to gather evidence? Such specialists usually don't bother with gathering evidence, and just make people meet a Boojum when they go round a corner. > (I have typed this message using the tip of my nose to avoid keyboard > timing biometric identification, and fingerprints.) Too late. We have your DNA fingerprints in our database, and you failed to see the pinhole aperture. Muahahahaha! -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From Oliver7870 at aol.com Mon Aug 20 06:34:29 2001 From: Oliver7870 at aol.com (Oliver7870 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:34:29 EDT Subject: remove Message-ID: <8c.b4ea277.28b26be5@aol.com> remove From plavisc1 at jhmi.edu Mon Aug 20 07:17:27 2001 From: plavisc1 at jhmi.edu (Philip LaViscount, CISSP) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:17:27 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010820101721.00a75008@pop.jhmi.edu> From editor at newsletter.join4free.com Mon Aug 20 03:42:35 2001 From: editor at newsletter.join4free.com (editor at newsletter.join4free.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:42:35 -0000 Subject: Cindy Margolis Nude - Free Poontang - Today's FREE Pics!=> cypherpunks@toad.com Message-ID: <20010820104235.1432342@64.38.239.83> For The Online Version Of This Newsletter, Click The URL Below: http://www.join4free.com/a/daily/ AOL USERS: Click Here For The Online Version Of This Newsletter ************************************************************************************************************* Note: this is not a spam email. This email was sent to you because your email was entered in on a website requesting to be a registered subscriber. If you did not request this email, please use the link below to unsubscribe: http://www.join4free.com/cancel.html?p=cypherpunks&job=998251872&email=cypherpunks%40toad.com and you will *never* receive another email from us! XXX11902935 ************************************************************************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 37280 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ecareonline at comcast.com Mon Aug 20 09:34:46 2001 From: ecareonline at comcast.com (ECAREONLINE) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 12:34:46 -0400 Subject: Thank You! Your Message Has Been Received Message-ID: <200108201635.JAA07144@toad.com> ******************************************************************************* Hello! This is a computer-generated response confirming that your e-mail message has been received by Comcast at Home. Please do not respond to this message. All inquiries are answered in the order they are received. Thank you for contacting us. We will be responding to your message within 24 to 48 hours. We ask that you do not send multiple e-mail messages (on the same subject) before you have received a response, as this can cause confusion and possibly delay our response to you. You may be able to find the answer to your question by using our online Help. You can reach this information by visiting the @Home homepage and clicking on the Help tab. You may also access this directly by clicking on the link below, or pasting the following URL into your browser: http://home-help.excite.com/ For any future correspondence regarding this issue, please reference this information in your message and leave the Subject line unchanged: The Case ID: 487595 Regards, Your Comcast at Home E-mail Response Team ******************************************************************************* From ecareonline at comcast.com Mon Aug 20 11:59:51 2001 From: ecareonline at comcast.com (ECAREONLINE) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:59:51 -0400 Subject: Customer Service Inquiry/Feedback (KMM1385560V33850L0KM) Message-ID: <200108201900.MAA13307@toad.com> Dear Michael, Thank you for your inquiry. Here's what you get FREE with @Home WebSpace: + 10 MB of disk space on our WebSpace server for your Web pages. + Up to 300 MB/month of bandwidth (i.e., people viewing your pages). + Use of advanced features like Java and JavaScript to your heart's content. + Online account management (in Member Services) for checking disk space and for viewing usage information. + Online help and hints for HTML authoring, uploading your files, and other fun stuff. Your web pages are viewable at this URL (Where you substitute your username): http://members.home.net/username/ In case you were wondering, all @Home users have URLS which start with http://members.home.net/ Activate WebSpace: 1) On the @Home home page, click Member Services from the main @Home homepage. 2) click WEBSPACE. 3) Enter your username and password, and submit the form. 4) Click "Activate" to enable your WebSpace. For related information select the WebSpace index in the Help Guide. There are pointers to FTP applications for Windows and Macintosh users. This information, as well as other important information regarding your @Home service can be found in the @Home User Guide. Visit our enhanced @Home Help by clicking on the Help link at the top of the @Home page or at http://home-help.excite.com/ If there is anything else we can help you with, please contact us. Thank you for choosing Comcast at Home. Melanie Comcast @Home E-mail Response Specialist Original Message Follows: ------------------------ Name: Michael Corbin Address: anonymous City: Rawlings State: MD Zip: 21XXX Phone-Day: (301)729-XXXX Phone-Eve: (301)729-XXXX Email: cypherpunks at toad.com Re: Customer Service Inquiry/Feedback- Comments: What do I need to do to be able to run a website on my @home.com connection? My friend is running one and Id like to do the same. www.isparian.com 24.180.233.36 IPAddress: 207.46.137.14 From a3495 at cotse.com Mon Aug 20 12:31:48 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition Message-ID: Eugene wrote: > and switching to an emission poor system (chucking CRT for LCD > would do plenty for starters) Actually, that won't help you much: emissions from LCD screens can be easier to decode than those from monitors. Active matrix LCD screens create very strong and clear emissions--as long as a display uses some form of pixel sweep where each pixel is activated at a unique time, then the emissions are simple to decode. Though in theory LCD screens emit less than a VDU, recent EMC controls have greatly reduced emanations from VDUs--with the result that the graphics card will often be the greatest source of compromise. Hope that helps! ~Faustine. From Bart.Wheeler at permissiononly.com Mon Aug 20 15:57:16 2001 From: Bart.Wheeler at permissiononly.com (Bart.Wheeler at permissiononly.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:57:16 -0700 Subject: Add Streaming Media to your Web Site Message-ID: <200108202257.PAA20130@permissiononly.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6618 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pzakas at toucancapital.com Mon Aug 20 13:33:22 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:33:22 -0400 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: relevant links... RS232 emanations (even while using shielded cables.) http://jya.com/rs232.pdf Expansion of van eck's original work to go from the "tv tuning" model to full digital conversion (from turkey): http://www.uekae.tubitak.gov.tr/informat.pdf phillip > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM > [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Eugene Leitl > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:42 PM > To: Faustine > Cc: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition > > > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > > > emissions are simple to decode. Though in theory LCD screens emit less > > than a VDU, recent EMC controls have greatly reduced emanations from > > VDUs--with the result that the graphics card will often be the > > greatest source of compromise. > > I'm not an expert. However, you can make extremely silent devices. It's > not rocket science, and one of the major points towards wearables. A LART > board burns about 1 W, and a hud type of display is low power. With less > than braindead engineering this is trivial to shield. A hud which contains > a built-in framebuffer will be essentially impossible to detect. If you > want to grow fancy, you can even encode the serial links sending commands > to it. > > Can anyone give me real world data on HF signature of a Twiddler2? From editor at newsletter.join4free.com Mon Aug 20 10:15:43 2001 From: editor at newsletter.join4free.com (editor at newsletter.join4free.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:15:43 -0000 Subject: Interactive CUM Portal - VIP Pass! cypherpunks@toad.com Message-ID: <20010820171543.1627689@64.38.239.84> Interactive CUM Portal - VIP Pass! Click The URL Below: http://sexier.com/getafid.asp?AFFID=2178855465 AOL USERS: Click Here ************************************************************************************************************* Note: this is not a spam email. This email was sent to you because your email was entered in on a website requesting to be a registered subscriber. If you did not request this email, please use the link below to unsubscribe: http://www.join4free.com/cancel.html?p=cypherpunks&job=998313325&email=cypherpunks%40toad.com and you will *never* receive another email from us! XXX11902935 ************************************************************************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5086 bytes Desc: not available URL: From throwaway1 at hushmail.com Mon Aug 20 17:30:26 2001 From: throwaway1 at hushmail.com (throwaway1 at hushmail.com) Date: Mon Aug 20 17:30:26 PDT 2001 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West Message-ID: <200108210028.f7L0Skk51633@mailserver1b.hushmail.com> At 05:32 PM 8/20/2001 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >A bit too late. They will endure as long as mankind endures in an archive somewhere. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:suoo-rMakz8:www.tilly.com/tulawclassof79/s.htm+Sheldon+Sperling+Shepard&hl=en Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From frissell at panix.com Mon Aug 20 14:32:57 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:32:57 -0400 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West In-Reply-To: <3B808DE1.4120BC2B@ibuc.com> References: <200108182210.f7IMAVO63611@mailserver1d.hushmail.com> <200108191834.OAA32066@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010820172219.041b8ec0@brillig.panix.com> At 09:11 PM 8/19/01 -0700, Paul Harrison wrote: >Now here a conundrum for Mr. Sperling, Esquire: If your >classmate's web homepage doesn't directly >link to the page with your home address, home phone, wife's >name, etc. then does the fact that Google's spiders and bots >finked you out (probably because your dearly beloved classmates >linked to the page from their own vanity home pages) >constitute intentional unauthorized access to a protected >computer system under 18 USC 1030a2C? Perhaps someone can write to him at SHELDON.SPERLING at usdoj.gov and ask. Looks like someone is watching the list because Mr. Sperling's details have been turned off on the Alumni page. A bit too late. They will endure as long as mankind endures in an archive somewhere. DCF ---- Why is a tight skirt like a covenant running with the land? Because they both bind the assignee. --Courtesy of the National Commission for the Preservation of Politically Incorrect Law School Jokes. From jya at pipeline.com Mon Aug 20 18:02:21 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:02:21 -0700 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010820172219.041b8ec0@brillig.panix.com> References: <3B808DE1.4120BC2B@ibuc.com> <200108182210.f7IMAVO63611@mailserver1d.hushmail.com> <200108191834.OAA32066@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108202209.SAA04939@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Sperling is the office boss, not the case prosecutor, who is AUSA Gallant. A report claims that a person with the last name Gallant is the sysadmin at Brian's competitor - who operated the Okie Rag's Web site Good Cyber-Citizen Brian reported to be holey and got cyber-criminalized forthwith. Whether the dipsec Gallant who got exposed by Brian had set a cyber-trap in order for Sperling/Gallant's office to grab some cyber-crime funding is just too fucking fantastic to believe, what with the cyber-soldier training camp being set up right in the neighborhood and bigtime newspaper notices splashing the chamber of commerce Ft. Sill-grade cyber-crime-fighting pork story. Okies like greased-pig justice.com prisons, too, especially that OKC federal transfer station we read about here so avidly when those rumors are not being shunted aside by Aimee's hot-eyed scheme to blow up something as if she's determined to prove AP is not a joke on Jeff. Come to think of it Aimee's reminds of Jeff, and the timing is pretty good for another raid. Hark, wipe your disks. From aquachick19 at excite.com Mon Aug 20 18:52:47 2001 From: aquachick19 at excite.com (D. Banner) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: need a 'friend' Message-ID: <26471324.998358767990.JavaMail.imail@magic.excite.com> need help to make someone disappear. i know you can help and i NEED your help _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ From info at giganetstore.com Mon Aug 20 11:40:02 2001 From: info at giganetstore.com (info at giganetstore.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:40:02 +0100 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Construa_a_sua_p=E1gina_na_internet?= Message-ID: <0541c0240181481WWWSHOPENS@wwwshopens.giganetstore.com> Construa a sua página na Web Agora vai ficar a saber como criar a sua página na internet, assim como utilizar os melhores programas de construção e design de páginas de internet. Este livros são apenas uma selecção dos muitos que pode encontrar na categoria de Informática/Multimédia. Criação fácil de páginas web com Office 2000... 4.680 ($) 23,34 (€) Poupe 10% Flash 5 - Conceitos e prática 5.175 ($) 25,81 (€) Poupe 10% Fundamental do Photoshop 6 3.420 ($) 17,06 (€) Poupe 10% HTML 4 & XHTML Curso completo 4.950 ($) 24,69 (€) Poupe 10% MS Frontpage 2000 passo a passo (c/ CD-Rom) 6.390 ($) 31,87 (€) Poupe 10 % Programação com Active Server Pages 3.555 ($) 17,73 (€) Poupe 10% Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http:\\www.giganetstore.com , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6397 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 20 19:21:46 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:21:46 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | MIT And HP Announce Joint Quantum Computer Project Message-ID: <3B81C5BA.40AC7A81@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/20/1936223.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From marketing at YourFootballChallenge.com Mon Aug 20 19:33:20 2001 From: marketing at YourFootballChallenge.com (YourFootballChallenge) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:33:20 -0500 Subject: Connect this Pool to YOUR website NOW - YourFootballChallenge Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 18277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 20 12:42:07 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:42:07 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <"YTM0OTU=.dbc6d27e438b9c5b73e538d23512390d@998335908.cotse .c om"> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > emissions are simple to decode. Though in theory LCD screens emit less > than a VDU, recent EMC controls have greatly reduced emanations from > VDUs--with the result that the graphics card will often be the > greatest source of compromise. I'm not an expert. However, you can make extremely silent devices. It's not rocket science, and one of the major points towards wearables. A LART board burns about 1 W, and a hud type of display is low power. With less than braindead engineering this is trivial to shield. A hud which contains a built-in framebuffer will be essentially impossible to detect. If you want to grow fancy, you can even encode the serial links sending commands to it. Can anyone give me real world data on HF signature of a Twiddler2? From frissell at panix.com Mon Aug 20 18:45:20 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:45:20 -0400 Subject: FBI Tries to Set Up Brian K. West In-Reply-To: <200108202209.SAA04939@granger.mail.mindspring.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010820172219.041b8ec0@brillig.panix.com> <3B808DE1.4120BC2B@ibuc.com> <200108182210.f7IMAVO63611@mailserver1d.hushmail.com> <200108191834.OAA32066@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010820214307.028a78a0@frissell@brillig.panix.com> At 06:02 PM 8/20/01 -0700, John Young wrote: >Come to think of it Aimee's reminds of Jeff, and the timing >is pretty good for another raid. > >Hark, wipe your disks. Save that Jeff is fresh out of soft targets, unless Choate qualifies. DCF ---- How to prove that 95% of the people are either anarchists or stupid. Ask the following question on a public opinion survey: "Some groups advocate violence as a means of achieving social change. Do you agree with these groups? Do you advocate violence as a means of achieving social change?" From frissell at panix.com Mon Aug 20 18:48:10 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:48:10 -0400 Subject: lawyerpunks-in-training...? [OT?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010820214726.03bfbdb0@frissell@brillig.panix.com> At 05:56 AM 8/20/01 +0000, David E. Smith wrote: >This is a fairly big list, and there aren't very many lawyerpunks on it. >(And they all seem to be tied up arguing with Choate. :-) There are entirely too many DCF ---- How can you, an anarchist, be a lawyer? My father was a physician. That doesn't mean he believed in disease. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Aug 20 13:54:42 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 22:54:42 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [Mojonation-users] Collaboration and more decentralization inMojoNation? (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:48:00 -0700 From: Jim McCoy Reply-To: mojonation-users at lists.sourceforge.net To: mojonation-users at lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Mojonation-users] Collaboration and more decentralization inMojo Nation? Kannan Goundan at kannan at cats.ucsc.edu wrote: > > I have two questions about the concept you guys are testing in > Mojo Nation. > > 1) Can you build a "web of trust" so that you aren't dependant > on your local blacklist of rogue brokers to protect yourself? > Possibly a "blacklist server" that people could subscribe to > that keeps track of all the punks that it's subscribers > reported. Yes, such a system could be implemented. The problem is that you need to somehow quantify this trust to allow the agents to make useful decisions based upon the information available to them. Zooko presented a paper at the last O'Reilly P2P conference on just such a subject, describing a variant of the distributed trust metric used by Advogato. The short answer to this is that there are a couple of known ways to deal with this problem but until it is really an issue it is not worth the time or effort to code in such a distributed trust system. > 2) Is there any way to decentralize the token server? Not really. You can have several competing token servers with various exchange rates offered but this is an even harder variant of the distributed trust problem described above. With the tokens the distributed trust metric starts talking about computational resources, which have some economic value. In this case we believe that eventually the trust would boil down to the same sorts of questions broker of currency face when making a trading decisions, with even less available information about the agents issuing the tokens that a currency trader has available. Agents would migrate towards one or two well-trusted issuers -- there is a reason that most banks around the world use dollars, euros, and yen as their reserve currency even if that is not the local currency... jim _______________________________________________ Mojonation-users mailing list Mojonation-users at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mojonation-users From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 20 21:21:08 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:21:08 -0500 Subject: The Register - Mitnick joins Vega hack investigation Message-ID: <3B81E1B4.D8687986@ssz.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21152.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From workathomeads at excite.com Tue Aug 21 00:56:59 2001 From: workathomeads at excite.com (workathomeads) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:56:59 -0800 Subject: New FREE Classified Ad Site, Over 8,800 visits per day-Featured ads, banner ads, url submission Message-ID: <200108212202.f7LM21831483@ak47.algebra.com> Hello, we have just launched the site www.workathomeads.com and let us tell you, in our first day we had over 2000 visits, now that will surely get your ad noticed wether it is a free one or a featured one this site has it all. Free ads, Banner Ads, Featured Ads, emails, URL submission.Come check us out at http://www.workathomeads.com If you wish to be removed from our mailing list please reply to this message with remove in the subject and we will gladly remove you at once and we are sorry to see you go. Thankyou Start your own wholesale buisness-visit http://www.Jwholesale.com for wholesale products. From news at convention.jagnik.com Mon Aug 20 23:59:15 2001 From: news at convention.jagnik.com (JAGnik) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 23:59:15 -0700 Subject: JAG: The Show, The Cast and Crew, The Convention Message-ID: <200108210831.DAA21684@einstein.ssz.com> JAG has just been renewed for another two years. The fans are estatic. JAGnik's around the world prepare to unite for the second JAG Convention known as JAGnik Invasion 2001. Hosted by JAGnik Association, the convention will be held at the Four Points Sheraton LAX and will include Saturday sessions with the main cast, the guest cast, as well as recurring cast members. The Sunday session features the production staff of JAG and the Brunch with the Stars. For more information about the convention visit www.jagnik.com or call 1-800-701-2311. WWW.JAGnik.com contains tons of information about the show, the cast, the crew, the convention, including over 21,000 still images. Soon we will be featuring video clips of apecial appearances by the cast and crew of JAG. For information about the show's episodes use this link http://www.jagnik.com/show/ For information about the cast check this out http://www.jagnik.com/cast/ For information about the crew please use this section http://www.jagnik.com/crew/ For information about the convention look here http://www.jagnik.com/convention/ For information about the newsletter look here http://www.jagnik.com/news_views/currentissue/ Have fun!! We comply with proposed federal legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail by providing you with a method for your e-mail address to be permanently removed from our database and any future mailings from our company. To remove your address from our mailing database please click the following link http://www.jagnik.com/remove.asp?address=cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3274 bytes Desc: not available URL: From news at convention.jagnik.com Tue Aug 21 00:27:45 2001 From: news at convention.jagnik.com (JAGnik) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:27:45 -0700 Subject: JAG: The Show, The Cast and Crew, The Convention Message-ID: <200108211240.FAA21782@toad.com> JAG has just been renewed for another two years. The fans are estatic. JAGnik's around the world prepare to unite for the second JAG Convention known as JAGnik Invasion 2001. Hosted by JAGnik Association, the convention will be held at the Four Points Sheraton LAX and will include Saturday sessions with the main cast, the guest cast, as well as recurring cast members. The Sunday session features the production staff of JAG and the Brunch with the Stars. For more information about the convention visit www.jagnik.com or call 1-800-701-2311. WWW.JAGnik.com contains tons of information about the show, the cast, the crew, the convention, including over 21,000 still images. Soon we will be featuring video clips of apecial appearances by the cast and crew of JAG. For information about the show's episodes use this link http://www.jagnik.com/show/ For information about the cast check this out http://www.jagnik.com/cast/ For information about the crew please use this section http://www.jagnik.com/crew/ For information about the convention look here http://www.jagnik.com/convention/ For information about the newsletter look here http://www.jagnik.com/news_views/currentissue/ Have fun!! We comply with proposed federal legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail by providing you with a method for your e-mail address to be permanently removed from our database and any future mailings from our company. To remove your address from our mailing database please click the following link http://www.jagnik.com/remove.asp?address=cypherpunks at toad.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3266 bytes Desc: not available URL: From celebritymailer at list.emailbucks.com Tue Aug 21 00:57:31 2001 From: celebritymailer at list.emailbucks.com (celebritymailer at list.emailbucks.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sorry to see you go. Message-ID: <688290.998380888309.JavaMail.root@mlserve> Dear Subscriber, Emailbucks has fulfilled your request to be 'unsubscribed' from our mailing list. We are sorry to see you go and hope to have you again in our upcoming projects. Because you were a part of our us. We are offering our CEN Girls In Private, but only for you! CEN is offering all subscribers & X-subscribers for our Private Teens Show at: http://www.privateteens.com/cgi-bin/click-pe.cgi?ebgone Featuring CEN's Staff Girls. Our Top 4 Girls: Most Wanted and Outlawed in 30 states! Amanda Nikki Nina Sammy Updated with new CEN girls every week! Ranging From USA - Amsterdam CEN's Private Teens are exclusively for all our CEN users, ONLY! Check it out here: http://www.privateteens.com/cgi-bin/click-pe.cgi?ebgone -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 9533 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kinkyporn-request at list.emailbucks.com Tue Aug 21 00:57:33 2001 From: kinkyporn-request at list.emailbucks.com (kinkyporn-request at list.emailbucks.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:57:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Kinky Porn [|GcTHkB0t8d2fZX7ixZbvv4hlYdcOxnNM|] Message-ID: <2061285.998380889286.JavaMail.root@mlserve> It's easy to receive your FREE subscription to SeXXXmail. Just reply to this message. You must be 18 years of age to receive KINKY SeXXXmail. Delete this message and DO NOT reply if you are under 18! KINKY SeXXXmail is received by over 1.000,000 subscribers daily and is rated as the #1 adult newsletter on the Internet. Don't delay, it's FREE! From casinos-request at list.outcomemail.com Tue Aug 21 00:57:36 2001 From: casinos-request at list.outcomemail.com (casinos-request at list.outcomemail.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: C-casinos [|ssdzM60yhBOfZX7ixZbvv4hlYdcOxnNM|] Message-ID: <5495423.998380892336.JavaMail.root@mlserve> It's easy to receive your FREE subscription to The Casino Bulletin! Just reply to this message. You must be 18 years of age to receive Casino News and Tips. Delete this message and DO NOT reply if you are under 18! Casino News and Tips is received by over 500,000 subscribers daily and is rated as the #1 newsletter on the Internet. Don't delay, it's FREE! From redoano at alternativagratis.com Mon Aug 20 21:22:33 2001 From: redoano at alternativagratis.com (Javier Redoano) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:22:33 -0300 Subject: AGRICULTURE - TRANSLATION Message-ID: <200108210428.XAA20974@einstein.ssz.com> TRANSLATION SERVICE English/Spanish - Spanish/English Agricultural Economics Farm Management Agronomy For any enquiries, please contact Javier Redoano at fredoano at fibertel.com.ar From ashley.pearce at gartner.com Tue Aug 21 01:08:13 2001 From: ashley.pearce at gartner.com (ashley.pearce at gartner.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 04:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: One if by WLAN, Two clicks you'll sea... Gartner's heading to Boston Message-ID: Priority Code: RA04E Dear Joe Cypherpunk: Imagine a wireless Internet that works better than the desktop LAN in your office wherever you need it. With the approval of 802.11 standards, the evolution of Bluetooth, 3G wireless services, and the availability of high-performance, low-cost access equipment for homes, wireless LANs (WLANs) have leapt from theory straight into the most exciting new high-speed wireless communication technology. Gartner's Wireless LAN Summit provides rational, unbiased and insightful research and analysis that underpin good decision making. Get on the fast track to receive immediate actionable advice, as well as information to lay down the roadwork for future results. For vendors, location owners, infrastructure providers and user organizations alike, this event is the only objective resource today for understanding what's really going on with WLAN technology and what it means for your business. Visit http://www.gartnerinfo.com/g.cgi/888020/31/us/wlan for more information and register today! Be sure to mention your priority code RA04E. Save US$200 when you register with payment by October 8, 2001: Go to http://www.gartnerinfo.com/g2.cgi/888020/31/us/wlan Call Ashley Pearce at +1 800 778 1997 or +1 203 316 6757 ************************************************************************* If, for any reason, you do not wish to receive future information from Gartner via e-mail, please send an e-mail to ashley.pearce at gartner.com If you have recently asked that your name be removed from our e-mail distribution list, please be advised that your request is being processed. We apologize for any inconvenience. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3158 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rout0016 at umn.edu Tue Aug 21 02:42:11 2001 From: rout0016 at umn.edu (rout0016 at umn.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 04:42:11 -0500 Subject: "Survey Says..." Message-ID: <200108210943.CAA16146@toad.com> Do you like to eat? Then please go to and take a short food survey. You can even help name a company! As a college student conducting this survey I would greatly appreciate your help, and it only takes seconds to complete. Thank you. Christopher Routhe, University of Minnesota student From pieterg at altavista.com Tue Aug 21 04:56:53 2001 From: pieterg at altavista.com (Pieter Grobler) Date: 21 Aug 2001 04:56:53 -0700 Subject: Zim Petition Message-ID: <20010821115653.23693.cpmta@c012.sfo.cp.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From lisat at etransmail2.com Tue Aug 21 06:14:19 2001 From: lisat at etransmail2.com (Lisa Thornton) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 06:14:19 -0700 Subject: New Prestige & Premium Checks! Message-ID: <200108211312.f7LDCe202195@ak47.algebra.com> You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com Good Afternoon! 1. New: highly attractive and secure Prestige & Premium check styles from G7 http://www.g7ps.com 2. Get your Executive Membership today and save on all your purchases of toner supplies, software and blank check paper! Click on the link below and then on the "Become a Member and Save" banner: http://www.g7ps.com 3. FREE Productivity Software in full retail packaging: ******************** a) eXpressForms "forms publisher" ($129.99 value) b) Fortune "relationship manager" ($149.99 value) c) DataScan "business card & contact list scanner" ($149.99 value) d) TransForm Suite "automatic form creation and text OCR" ($59.99 value) Pick up your FREE products at the web site specified below. Click on the following link for details and to order (or call the 800 number below) http://www.g7ps.com ********************* Please do not hesitate to call 800-303-2620 for any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Regards, Lisa Thornton Productivity Services Director G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. lisat at etransmail2.com 800-303-2620 To change your communication preference please click on: http://www.globalzon2k.com/scripts/mf_de.asp?e=cypherpunks at algebra.com or simply reply to this Email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. From bill.stewart at pobox.com Tue Aug 21 08:03:13 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:03:13 -0700 Subject: Ex-MI6 agent put porn on police computer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010821080211.036bde70@idiom.com> At 09:30 AM 08/21/2001 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote: >TUESDAY AUGUST 21 2001 > >Ex-MI6 agent put porn on police computer >http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2001290847,00.html > >BY JOANNA BALE > >A FORMER MI6 agent is facing prison after he admitted yesterday downloading >pornographic images of children on to his office computer while working at a >police headquarters. I guess that's another case of "Military Intelligence is an oxymoron".... From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 21 08:28:27 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:28:27 -0700 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108211530.f7LFUjf18630@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 04:10 AM, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> You're missing my general point. If you prefer that I not use >> "religion," >> I could just as easily use an example where certainly people of some >> community think that some otherwise-constitutional practice is >> "harmful." > > True. Yet harm gives you cause for Common Law action, no? No, not generally, not in the U.S. The lawyerpunks and lawyer larvae can explain in more detail, but a tort (civil action, not a criminal action) must have some element of either rights violation or breaking of a contract. A wall that falls over onto someone's property generates a possible tort, the failure to deliver a product according to a contract also does. But the fact that I claim I am "harmed" by Mormons in my midst does not. (Nor does an actual case of economic harm: if a bookstore is driven out of business by the arrival of a supergiant chain store, it will not win a tort case, generally speaking. This is because there is no "right to face no competition" and there was no non-compete contract. The little bookstore may try to argue that the large chain is in violation of some anti-bigness law, and many have, but this is somewhat different. And the small stores have not yet been successful in blocking the larger stores.) > It's a question of where you draw the line between coerced and > uncoerced. If > many enough of your peers think it's good behavior to label your > communications, and failure to do so leads to an amount of badwill, does > that constitute coercion? In English, "coercion" means by use of force. If your friends think you should do something, and you comply, this is not coercion in the sense implied here. (This may be "social coercion," but we mean something more specific.) Coercion means men with guns threatening people with imprisonment for displaying certain images, for example. Coercion is when Congress passes the Protection of the Children Act of 2002 and requires all ISPs to provide content-filtering labels and tools. This is the direction "content labelling" is going, not the voluntary system ALREADY IN PLACE. --Tim May From georgemw at speakeasy.net Tue Aug 21 09:21:04 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:21:04 -0700 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: References: <200108170506.f7H56WC19551@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B822800.27773.566F14A@localhost> On 21 Aug 2001, at 14:10, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > > >You're missing my general point. If you prefer that I not use "religion," > >I could just as easily use an example where certainly people of some > >community think that some otherwise-constitutional practice is "harmful." > > True. Yet harm gives you cause for Common Law action, no? > Harm does, but "harm" doesn't. It's pretty easy to claim that books and movies etc which "glorify" "bad" behavior lead to viewers being more likely to engage in the bad behavior glorified, or bad behavior in general, without even trying to claim that a particular "bad book" was responsible for a particular crime. I have two differnet reponses to this kind of accusation: 1) Bullshit, I'm not responsible for other people's actions. 2) If I agreed about it being "bad behavior" I wouldn't be "glorifying" it in the first place. > It's a question of where you draw the line between coerced and uncoerced. If > many enough of your peers think it's good behavior to label your > communications, and failure to do so leads to an amount of badwill, does > that constitute coercion? If not, we have a voluntary system where social > pressures encourage you to rate, but where the gain is not a direct economic > advantage, but rather the avoidance of the badwill of others. One might > argue that such "bad behavior" should be tolerated, and that rating is no > longer properly "voluntary" if rating only means you avoid an extra-legal > social sanction. Nevertheless, there is a definite incentive for a > non-anonymous person to rate correctly (to maintain his reputation), > sometimes an incentive to misrate regardless (like when you're advocating a > politically incorrect opinion), and the extra possibilities afforded by > anonymity in these situations (using a disposable tentacle to communicate > and/or misrate). This way, anonymity does make a difference even in an > uncoerced situation. The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the crucial point that the people calling for labelling ("voluntary" or otherwise) are not your customers, they're people trying to protect their own or their children's virgin eyes from content they find offensive or blasphemous or whatever. You have an economic incentive to please your customers, but you have no incentive to please people who aren't your customers. George > Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 > student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From freematt at coil.com Tue Aug 21 06:30:39 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:30:39 -0400 Subject: Ex-MI6 agent put porn on police computer Message-ID: TUESDAY AUGUST 21 2001 Ex-MI6 agent put porn on police computer http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2001290847,00.html BY JOANNA BALE A FORMER MI6 agent is facing prison after he admitted yesterday downloading pornographic images of children on to his office computer while working at a police headquarters. Alan Coates, 53, a Cleveland police communications manager, was found with hundreds of explicit pictures of young girls and boys. Coates, who is married, had earlier stood trial at Newcastle Crown Court on 15 specimen charges of making indecent photographs of children. The jury failed to reach a verdict and a fresh trial was fixed for November. But after protesting his innocence for more than three years, Coates pleaded guilty yesterday to three charges from the original indictment. The father of two, whose civilian responsibilities matched those of a superintendent, linked up to pornographic sites using the "America on Line" service and created personal electronic files on the system to store the images. Graham Reeds, for the prosecution, told the court that the charges related to 34 images found on Coates's laptop computer which had been created in June 1998. Mr Reeds said: "They were deliberately saved so that he could have them for his own gratification and purposes." Coates, of Redford, Bishop Auckland, who will be sentenced on September 14 after the preparation of reports, was granted unconditional bail. He worked for the British and American Governments for more than 30 years as an expert in the art of bugging and surveillance techniques. In the mid-80s his expertise had become so great that he was drafted into MI6, where he was involved in "extremely sensitive" government work. He was vetted in 1967, 1976 and 1980, the checks failing to reveal his weakness for child pornography. The computer images were discovered during an administrative check while Coates was in Berlin on business. ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From bill.stewart at pobox.com Tue Aug 21 09:49:11 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:49:11 -0700 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010821094616.02dce7a0@idiom.com> At 03:31 PM 08/20/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: >Eugene wrote: > > > and switching to an emission poor system (chucking CRT for LCD > > would do plenty for starters) > >Actually, that won't help you much: emissions from LCD screens can be >easier to decode than those from monitors. Active matrix LCD screens create >very strong and clear emissions--as long as a display uses some form of >pixel sweep where each pixel is activated at a unique time, then the >emissions are simple to decode. Though in theory LCD screens emit less than >a VDU, recent EMC controls have greatly reduced emanations from VDUs--with >the result that the graphics card will often be the greatest source of >compromise. Also, most laptops have a VGA connector on the back, which leaks heavily. An external VGA screen might be a bit quieter, because the cables can be shielded, but it still depends on how capable the attacker is. And basically, if the Feds are sitting outside your house listening to whatever they can from your computer, you've already blown your security :-) Shoulda used Blacknet. From freematt at coil.com Tue Aug 21 08:44:46 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:44:46 -0400 Subject: How you can defeat photo radar or red light cameras Message-ID: How you can defeat photo radar or red light cameras Photo of a Stoplight Camera http://www.alamanceind.com/photos/peek1.jpg Tired of Photo Radar? Add PhotoBlock* licence plate covers! http://www.photoblock.com/ Photo Radar Protection from Photobuster http://www.photobuster.com/ Photo Radar Protection - Protector http://radar-detectors.com/protector_overhead.htm Chameleon Anti-Photo Radar License Cover http://www.radarscramblers.com/product_antiPhoto.htm Photo Radar Protection - Photobuster http://www.laserbusters.com/photobuster.htm Anti Photo Radar License Plate Cover http://www.jammersstore.com/anti_photo.htm [Note from Matthew Gaylor: Thanks to spiker for sending this. Sent for informational purposes only.] ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 21 12:08:01 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:08:01 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money Message-ID: <200108211909.f7LJ9Mf19487@slack.lne.com> Since none of the former, current, or larval lawyers have weighed in on the issue, I'll give my two bits. The question is this: is it a good idea for list members to go to law school? Issues of accredited vs. unaccredited, reputable vs. correspondence vs. diploma mills, etc. First, there are obviously already a huge number of lawyers in the U.S. I can't speak for Europe, where the "Eurorights" person is presumably from, but it's crystal-clear that there are many, many lawyers in the U.S. And a lot of kids in law school. And yet lawyers are working as low-paid paralegals, doing clerical work processing wills and divorces, and joining "law factories" where they probably make less money than engineers. Second, most of these lawyers won't be doing "interesting" work. See above. Certainly most won't be doing crypto or EFF-type work..unless they go to work for EFF, EPIC, etc. Those with a history of incisive comments on mailing lists and in crypto-related fora may find it possible to get in with these kinds of outfits. (But why bother? The D.C. groups are mostly lobbying groups...and my strong impression is that they are mainly oriented around their founders and chief mouthpieces. A junior lawyer would mainly be a water carrier for one of the luminaries.) Third, "pro bono" Cypherpunks-related work is not very remunerative, by definition, and also not very common. Even if one thinks of the Parker and Bell cases as "Cypherpunks-related," which I don't, there are not many of these cases. The recent cases of Dmitry/Adobe and West/Oklahoma are more related, but these are likely to be taken over by high-profile experts if they go to trial. What I'm saying is that a few lawyers will end up in interesting areas. The vast majority will be off in Skokie and Boise and L.A., processing immigration requests, meeting with DWI clients, and processing OSHA forms for Fortune 500 companies. I base this on statistics, on talking to some lawyer friends, and on experiences my brother in L.A. tells me about: he has some lawyer friends who went to UCLA Law School, some even studying under such luminaries in the online world as Eugene Volokh, and it's "slim pickings" these days for many of them. They simply don't have the luxury of picking cases to work on...they're grubbing to make ends meet, to pay off loans, and to maybe, just maybe, get a nominally permanent job at an acceptably prestigious law firm. A friend of mine is now a senior IP lawyer at a leading Silicon Valley law firm, so it _does_ happen. However, he left Intel in the mid-70s and went to Stanford Law School, so he beat the rush and he had the street credentials from his Intel work. Getting into law this late in the game is not for the faint of heart. Fourth, much too much is being made of the role of law in pushing or enhancing Cypherpunks-type themes. This goes back to Lessig's custom-law-technology analysis again. Fighting a few cases where some hacker is busted for being stupid is all well and good, but these cases are NOT altering the landscape in ways that certain technologies are. I suspect a lot of people these days (more than the several on the list who have spoken up) are talking about law school is that it's a way to change a career. Seen most cynically, it's a nebulous "in several years I'll be doing something different!" sort of shift. A lot easier to make plans to go to law school than to write a new software application, if one doesn't have the inspiration, that is. Fifth, consider that I can think of at least two vocal people on this list who went to law school and got J.D.s One or both may have passed bar exams. Neither are practicing anything related to law at this time. (Though their "legal training" may be slightly useful in their careers...that's not for me to say.) A third lawyer I'm not sure about...he was at a software company, but doing law-related stuff. There's a fourth lawyer, who may be a professor, but he's very quiet these days. Another former list member is definitely a lawyer, and has been active in crypto and ICANN issues. I just don't see spending 3-4 years in law school as being very exciting. And I don't mean my personal opinion of whether I'd go to law school or not: I mean that not much exciting work is being done by lawyers. Most are tucked-away in cubicles, in government offices, in small one-person offices scattered hither and yon. Processing wills. Forwarding escrow documents. Reviewing divorce papers. Ugh. But people should do what really drives them. Anyone going into law this late in the boom just to make money is probably going to be in for a rude awakening. Ditto for anyone going into it in order to do pro bono work on Cypherpunks issues. For the relatively few people--you know who you are--who have a sharp mind and are laying the groundwork for working in the "cyberlaw" industry, my analysis may not apply. My two bits. --Tim May From gil_hamilton at hotmail.com Tue Aug 21 13:14:42 2001 From: gil_hamilton at hotmail.com (Gil Hamilton) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:14:42 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition Message-ID: Aimee Farr writes: > > It's also rather interesting that Aimee is objecting to > > people "cowering behind remailers". On the cypherpunk list? > > On the contrary, we should all be using remailers. Someone > seriously >does need to start a node which only accepts posts > > from remailers. I'm beginning to strongly suspect Aimee as > as troll. > >See Anderson v. Hale, N.D. Ill., No. 00-C-2021, 05/10/01 After two days of fighting with their Mickey Mouse software, I actually managed to track down this case on the web page of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. While somewhat interesting with respect to the disclosure of personal details behind "anonymous" email accounts, it's got very little to do with the snippet above that it was offered in reply to. Cypherpunks remailers do not have associated account identity information as was being sought in this case (at least not to the extent that such information is associated with the sender of one or more particular messages). In fact, the "anonymous" accounts referred to in that case are/were not anonymous at all in the cypherpunkian sense and did not issue via remailers; those accounts are pseudonymous (like the account from which this message came [or the account known as aimee.farr at pobox.com? :]). This is why the people in that case really were "cowering" behind their "remailers". If they'd used cypherpunks- anonymous remailers, they'd be raising their middle finger from behind their remailers. Finally, if Aimee doesn't wish to be perceived as a troll, she really needs to try harder. Echoing calls for Choate to provide summary information describing the topics of URLs he forwards, I would like to ask Aimee to provide a synopsis of cases she cites here and preferably a few words on why she thinks that case is interesting or applicable to the current thread. Rather than just tossing the lawyerly pearls before us unappreciative swine. - GH _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From larsg at eurorights.org Tue Aug 21 05:04:58 2001 From: larsg at eurorights.org (Lars Gaarden) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:04:58 +0200 Subject: EU lawyerpunks? (was: lawyerpunks-in-training...?) References: Message-ID: <3B824E6A.90408@eurorights.org> Steve Furlong wrote: > Dave Smith asked about law schools for Cypherpunks. > > I've been in law school for the past year. I work as a programmer and > am interested in c-punk issues, so I guess I'm a cypherpunk. Does anyone know about any online law schools in EU that would be suitable for a lawpunk-wannabe? Seems like the EU cyberrights movement is starting to get some traction, and they (erm, we) could use people with some legal training. -- LarsG From decoy at iki.fi Tue Aug 21 04:10:18 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:10:18 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: <200108170506.f7H56WC19551@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >You're missing my general point. If you prefer that I not use "religion," >I could just as easily use an example where certainly people of some >community think that some otherwise-constitutional practice is "harmful." True. Yet harm gives you cause for Common Law action, no? >The U.S. Constitution is in fact a series of limitations on what >government may do...including what it may due to its "subjects." That's also precisely what I meant, even if I expressed it a bit differently. >We don't need a proposal for "voluntary self-labelling"...if it's >voluntary, people can already do it. In fact, they already do. Of course, >what people are now doing is not at all what the proponents of "voluntary >self-labelling" apparently intend to be the voluntary labels. That is precisely why I said labelling is a "nice gesture". The Code must not concern itself with labelling, but you *can* do it, some people want labelled content, and there are political advantages in both rating your content and having truly voluntary raters around. Why not be one of them, then? If you don't want to, it's always a valid reason. I just think there are valid gains in rating, and so e.g. to a degree rate my own site. >Truly voluntary self-labelling, without imposed standards, is IPSO FACTO >what we already have, right? If someone voluntary says their site is "hot" >or chooses to say nothing, this is "voluntary." > >Right? Quite. My argument was about what is "nice", no more. >> As for misrating, that's a problem of reputation. If you can solve it >> in an anonymous economy, you can certainly solve it in a non-anonymous >> rating context. >> >Actually, this is a separate topic worthy of more discussion that simply >saying "you can certain solve it in a non-anonymous rating context." How? Maybe we should limit discussion to this as it's more cypherpunkish than rating/labelling per se. >By the way, what does anonymous vs. non-anonymous have to do with truly >voluntary self-ratings, that is, whatever anonymous or non-anonymous >agents _say_? > >A voluntary system means an uncoerced system... It's a question of where you draw the line between coerced and uncoerced. If many enough of your peers think it's good behavior to label your communications, and failure to do so leads to an amount of badwill, does that constitute coercion? If not, we have a voluntary system where social pressures encourage you to rate, but where the gain is not a direct economic advantage, but rather the avoidance of the badwill of others. One might argue that such "bad behavior" should be tolerated, and that rating is no longer properly "voluntary" if rating only means you avoid an extra-legal social sanction. Nevertheless, there is a definite incentive for a non-anonymous person to rate correctly (to maintain his reputation), sometimes an incentive to misrate regardless (like when you're advocating a politically incorrect opinion), and the extra possibilities afforded by anonymity in these situations (using a disposable tentacle to communicate and/or misrate). This way, anonymity does make a difference even in an uncoerced situation. >this point explodes in too many obvious directions for me to even try to >write about here, given the low level of interest in the discussion the >two of us have been having. Agreed. If the topic of rating once again surfaces, for whatever reason, we can always pick it up then. For now it does seem interest is minimal. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From spider at sdf.lonestar.org Tue Aug 21 07:17:08 2001 From: spider at sdf.lonestar.org (Al Saxter) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: remove Message-ID: remove From opinemail at nitro-net.com Tue Aug 21 10:39:00 2001 From: opinemail at nitro-net.com (Jeff Dean) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:39:00 -0300 Subject: partnership request Message-ID: <200108211447218.SM00092@heebeha6> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1395 bytes Desc: not available URL: From opinemail at nitro-net.com Tue Aug 21 10:39:01 2001 From: opinemail at nitro-net.com (Jeff Dean) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:39:01 -0300 Subject: partnership request Message-ID: <200108211447406.SM00092@heebeha6> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1395 bytes Desc: not available URL: From opinemail at nitro-net.com Tue Aug 21 11:00:28 2001 From: opinemail at nitro-net.com (Jeff Dean) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:00:28 -0300 Subject: partnership request - sorry for the last message Message-ID: <200108211509687.SM00092@heebeha6> I want to resell your OPTIN Email services. Please provide me with any information on how we can partner together. I have a large client base that is interested in doing opt-in email marketing. We are also going to do some heavy promoting of these services soon and would like to get the most profit for our efforts. Our current partners have raised their rates so we are looking elsewhere for new partnerships. Our website www.optinemailing.com will be the primary domain for optin mail marketing. We hope to hear back from you on this. We have enjoyed a 25% to 40% discount so far from our partners. We would prefer to have you handle all the financials for our clients and pay us a commission on our sales. We know that this in not always feasible. Please give us your terms and try and work somehting out. It would be appreciated if you could provide a capabilites list and a spreadsheet with categories and subcatgory listing the number of emails available from you. I appologize for this email if you no longer provide these services. Please disregard this message or pass it on to a contact who might have a need for such business. Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing back from you on this proposal request for a business partnership. Jack Walzack Senior Consultant/Web Developer optinemail at nitro-net.com Phone: 1-800-699-9154 Fax: 1-309-279-0334 From opinemail at nitro-net.com Tue Aug 21 11:00:29 2001 From: opinemail at nitro-net.com (Jeff Dean) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:00:29 -0300 Subject: partnership request - sorry for the last message Message-ID: <200108211509828.SM00092@heebeha6> I want to resell your OPTIN Email services. Please provide me with any information on how we can partner together. I have a large client base that is interested in doing opt-in email marketing. We are also going to do some heavy promoting of these services soon and would like to get the most profit for our efforts. Our current partners have raised their rates so we are looking elsewhere for new partnerships. Our website www.optinemailing.com will be the primary domain for optin mail marketing. We hope to hear back from you on this. We have enjoyed a 25% to 40% discount so far from our partners. We would prefer to have you handle all the financials for our clients and pay us a commission on our sales. We know that this in not always feasible. Please give us your terms and try and work somehting out. It would be appreciated if you could provide a capabilites list and a spreadsheet with categories and subcatgory listing the number of emails available from you. I appologize for this email if you no longer provide these services. Please disregard this message or pass it on to a contact who might have a need for such business. Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing back from you on this proposal request for a business partnership. Jack Walzack Senior Consultant/Web Developer optinemail at nitro-net.com Phone: 1-800-699-9154 Fax: 1-309-279-0334 From nobody at mix.winterorbit.com Tue Aug 21 06:20:19 2001 From: nobody at mix.winterorbit.com (Anonymous) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:20:19 +0200 Subject: Offender Registration: Duty to Register Message-ID: <6e64a32a4cb2d0b6beba65acc51d534a@mix.winterorbit.com> Offender Registration: Duty to Register DMCA Offenders and WIPO Offenders It is a crime to fail to register. If you have been convicted of a DMCA offense or WIPO crime, you may be required to register with local law enforcement under California law. If the offense was added to the registration law after the date of your conviction, you may not have received personal notice of your duty to register as a DMCA or WIPO offender. Check with your local law enforcement agency to see if the offense for which you were convicted requires registration. To register, go to the police department in the city where you live or are located, or the local sheriff's department if you are in an unincorporated area. If you have questions about your DMCA offense or WIPO conviction, or need to know whether your out-of-state conviction is the equivalent of a registrable offense in California, contact the DMCA and WIPO Registration Program in the California Department of Justice by e-mail at sotp at doj.ca.gov, or the address below: DMCA and WIPO Registration Program California Department of Justice P.O. Box 903387 Sacramento, CA 94203-3870 http://caag.state.ca.us/registration/index.htm From mab at research.att.com Tue Aug 21 13:13:13 2001 From: mab at research.att.com (Matt Blaze) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:13:13 -0400 Subject: CFP: Financial Cryptography '02 Message-ID: Call for Papers Financial Cryptography '02 March 11-14, 2002 Sonesta Beach Resort Southhampton, Bermuda Sponsored by the International Financial Cryptography Association Original papers are solicited on all aspects of financial data security and digital commerce for submission to the Sixth Annual Conference on Financial Cryptography (FC '02). FC '02 brings together researchers in the financial, legal, cryptologic, and data security fields to foster cooperation and exchange of ideas. Relevant topics include: Anonymity Infrastructure Design Audit Legal and Regulatory Authentication and Issues Identification Loyalty Mechanisms Certification and Peer-to-Peer Systems Authorization Payments and Commercial Transactions Micropayments and Contracts Privacy Digital Cash Risks Management Digital Rights Secure Banking Management Smart Cards Electronic Purses Trust Management Implementation Issues Watermarking Information Economics Instructions for Authors: Complete papers (or complete extended abstracts) must be at most fifteen (15) single-spaced standard pages in length and must be received before 23h59 UTC on November 4, 2001. All papers must be submitted electronically. (In exceptional circumstances, paper submissions can be accepted, but special arrangements must be made with the program chair prior to October 31, 2001.) Papers must be in either standard PostScript or PDF format, and should be submitted via electronic mail to fc02submit at crypto.com prior to the deadline. Note that submissions in formats other than PostScript or PDF, including word processor source formats such as MS Word or LaTeX, will be rejected. Submitted papers should include on the first page the title, all authors and their affiliations, a brief abstract, and a list of topical keywords. Papers must be original; submission of previously published material or papers under consideration in other conferences or journals is not permitted. Proposals for panels are also solicited, and should include a brief description of the panel as well as prospective participants. Panel proposals should be submitted by electronic mail to the same address, in plain ASCII format. Important Dates: Submissions due: November 4, 2001 Notifications to authors: December 23, 2001 Camera-ready papers due: February 4, 2002 General Chair: Nicko van Someren (nCipher) Program Committee: Matt Blaze, Program Chair (AT&T Labs) Dan Boneh (Stanford University) Stefan Brands (Zero Knowledge) Dan Geer (@stake) Ian Goldberg (Zero Knowledge) Angelos Keromytis (Columbia University) Paul Kocher (Cryptography Research) Ron Rivest (MIT) Tomas Sander (Intertrust) Rebecca Wright (AT&T Labs) --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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' From workathomeads at excite.com Tue Aug 21 17:18:48 2001 From: workathomeads at excite.com (workathomeads) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:18:48 -0800 Subject: New FREE Classified Ad Site, Over 8,800 visits per day-Featured ads, banner ads, url submission Message-ID: <200108212322.f7LNMPa26616@lsmls01.we.mediaone.net> Hello, we have just launched the site www.workathomeads.com and let us tell you, in our first day we had over 2000 visits, now that will surely get your ad noticed wether it is a free one or a featured one this site has it all. Free ads, Banner Ads, Featured Ads, emails, URL submission.Come check us out at http://www.workathomeads.com If you wish to be removed from our mailing list please reply to this message with remove in the subject and we will gladly remove you at once and we are sorry to see you go. Thankyou Start your own wholesale buisness-visit http://www.Jwholesale.com for wholesale products. From bbc at cal2.vsnl.net.in Tue Aug 21 03:53:53 2001 From: bbc at cal2.vsnl.net.in (blue bird chemical) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:23:53 +0530 Subject: Unsubscribe Message-ID: <001d01c12a2f$9539b0a0$8da8c8cb@user> plz unsbscribe me from cypherpunks at toad.com. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 392 bytes Desc: not available URL: From a3495 at cotse.com Tue Aug 21 13:32:36 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition Message-ID: anonymous wrote: >> Someone seriously does need to start a node which only accepts posts >> from remailers. >Or a list. One thing you know about an anonymous message - the poster >uses at least one cryptographic tool. Too many "cypherpunks" not only >don't write code, they can't even use code. So why is it that the vast majority of the technical and insightful contributions here seem to come from people who aren't averse to using a reasonable simulacrum of a real name and address? I made the deliberate choice not to use a remailer because I think it's more interesting to contribute while having a prior body of posts "attached" to me. People come to know more what to expect--and if I irritate/bore/piss them off too much, they stop reading me. Which is exactly as it should be. When I'm pressed for time here (as I usually am) I read people loosely ranked in order of how interesting I've found their posts to be in the past. I don't think I'd have the patience to wade through a big undifferentiated grab bag of irrelevant dross each day. And you know that's probably just what you'd end up with if no one had the slightest shred of accountability for any of their statements. There's too much discourse around here on the level of "you're a poopy head" "no, u r the poopy head" as it is. What does it really contribute? Besides a great example of Gresham's law in action, that is. For me, services like Hushmail and Cotse make for a nice compromise between full accountability (and full vulnerability) on one hand, and complete anonymity and privacy on the other. Though if you're after complete privacy re: your opinions and the details of your life, you're better off not writing them down in the first place, here or anywhere else. If what I "wanted" out of participating in the list were different, I can see myself making a different choice in either direction. I assume everyone here weighed those considerations for themselves before they got here: as far as I'm concerned, nobody has the slightest business deciding it for anyone else. ~Faustine. From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Tue Aug 21 13:50:43 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:50:43 -0400 Subject: Friend- AND...Down The Stretch They Come.......$$ Message-ID: <200108212050.QAA20620@www.infogeneratorpro.com> Tue Aug 21, 2001- Hi Friend- IN recent weeks you have asked for a cd rom about a dynamic work at home opportunity. If you would like to get a great overview of how you can start making money with this opportunity today call our 24-7 TOLL FREE Overview number. You will be very glad you made the call! 1-888-785-0135 Ext 81 ( Press Ext 81, say your name, music for about 20 seconds then the overview ) Once you have listened please email me back at and I can answer any questions you have and help you get rolling if you would like! Enjoy, Your Friend, Greg 1-888-785-0135 Ext 81 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from THIS list: http://usub.net/boLBEFL _________________ OR _______________________ Remove yourself from ALL LISTS at InfoGeneratorPRO: http://usub.net/aoLBEFL Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From sunder at anon7.arachelian.com Tue Aug 21 14:07:21 2001 From: sunder at anon7.arachelian.com (Sunder) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:07:21 -0400 (edt) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > > > Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as > > equal to other speech, > > But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so > offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to > create the speech. No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do > anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'. While the 'speech' part > is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to resolve the issues > relating to the acts) there is still the component of the acts against > minors that needs to be dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'. So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a movie of a person getting shot in the head, one would have to commit murder? So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a Godzilla stomps on Tokyo movie, one must first see the destruction of the city of Tokyo? So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a movie of an exploding nuclear bomb, decimating Hiroshima, one must build such a weapon and drop it on city? So in Choate Prime, are there no cartoons because it would be impossible to create them in real life? Porn is speech, the same as any other type of magazine, movie, sound, etc. The acts can and have been faked, as are the sound effects. The speech part isn't irrelevant, it's the whole, and only point of this disucssion. Yes, I know you'd bring up kiddy porn, but recall that not only movies of such acts are banned, but so are cartoons, comic books, etc. depicting such acts. In other words, here in the real world (i.e. not in Choate Prime), kiddy porn is thought crime, and thus it is restricted speech. So is going on Yahoo stock message boards and getting people to buy stocks so as to raise their price. So are sexual offers/requests in the office. I'm sure in your next elequent reply you will continue to tell us about your lovely world in its parallel dimension, which has no relation to ours, and we'll read it with fascination. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_ at _sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ From sunder at anon7.arachelian.com Tue Aug 21 14:07:21 2001 From: sunder at anon7.arachelian.com (Sunder) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:07:21 -0400 (edt) Subject: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > > > Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as > > equal to other speech, > > But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so > offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to > create the speech. No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do > anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'. While the 'speech' part > is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to resolve the issues > relating to the acts) there is still the component of the acts against > minors that needs to be dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'. So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a movie of a person getting shot in the head, one would have to commit murder? So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a Godzilla stomps on Tokyo movie, one must first see the destruction of the city of Tokyo? So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a movie of an exploding nuclear bomb, decimating Hiroshima, one must build such a weapon and drop it on city? So in Choate Prime, are there no cartoons because it would be impossible to create them in real life? Porn is speech, the same as any other type of magazine, movie, sound, etc. The acts can and have been faked, as are the sound effects. The speech part isn't irrelevant, it's the whole, and only point of this disucssion. Yes, I know you'd bring up kiddy porn, but recall that not only movies of such acts are banned, but so are cartoons, comic books, etc. depicting such acts. In other words, here in the real world (i.e. not in Choate Prime), kiddy porn is thought crime, and thus it is restricted speech. So is going on Yahoo stock message boards and getting people to buy stocks so as to raise their price. So are sexual offers/requests in the office. I'm sure in your next elequent reply you will continue to tell us about your lovely world in its parallel dimension, which has no relation to ours, and we'll read it with fascination. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_ at _sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ From a3495 at cotse.com Tue Aug 21 15:05:04 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:05:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money Message-ID: Tim wrote: >But people should do what really drives them. Anyone going into law this >late in the boom just to make money is probably going to be in for a >rude awakening. Ditto for anyone going into it in order to do pro bono >work on Cypherpunks issues. Great points. If you're looking to make a difference re: cypherpunk and pro- libertarian issues and have a scientific and practical streak, why not get an advanced degree in policy analysis instead? You get a rock-solid grounding in a number of critical disciplines, and put yourself in a position to seriously affect policy on the broadest possible stage. Not for the ideological "purists" out there, but personally I don't see anything at all wrong with wringing every ounce of information you can get from the real pros, whether they share your values or not. If there were a number of people committed to advancing libertarian issues who took this approach, I think it would be a great thing. Harvard is supposed to have the best program, but here's a little something I found online from the University of British Columbia which explains what it's all about. This one seems a little business-heavy, but other analysis programs have a lot more room to focus on technology policy. At least this gets you in the ballpark: Policy Analysis and Strategy Overview This PhD specialization covers both business strategy and public policy analysis. It draws strongly on underlying foundations in economics and in applied statistics. Topics in which faculty members have expertise include entrepreneurship and venture capital finance, international investment, the management of research and development, environmental management and policy, experimental tests of game theory, competitive strategy and competition policy, public enterprise and regulation, and international trade policy. Undergraduate or masters-level training in economics and/or quantitative disciplines such as mathematics, statistics or engineering would be a typical background for qualified students. Students with undergraduate backgrounds in commerce or business who have focused on the more quantitative areas would also be well qualified for the program. Once students are admitted they have extensive interaction with faculty members and attend a regular workshop run by the Policy Analysis Division, in addition to normal course work. The first major supervised research project is undertaken in the student's first summer. Except for those funded from outside sources, at least three years of funding is guaranteed to all admitted students. Program of Study There is considerable flexibility in the programs of individual students. All students are required to take a faculty-wide course in research methodology and a faculty wide course in teaching methods. Other required courses include: Economics 500 Microeconomic Theory Economics 565 Market Structure Commerce 581 or equivalent Statistical Methods Commerce 691 Advanced Topics in Policy Analysis The student will take at least four other courses to form two "fields" (two courses per field) and will normally take one or more additional courses in applied statistics or research methods. These courses will be chosen in consultation with the Graduate Advisor and may be in the Commerce Faculty or in other areas of study. Students normally complete their course work in two years and write comprehensive exams at the end of the second year. However, students who have taken prior graduate work may be able to complete course work requirements more quickly. Sample Program Sequence Year - 1 Fall COMM 693 (Research Methodology), COMM 581 (Statistical Methods), Econ 500 (Microeconomic Theory), Elective or Field Course Year - 1 Winter Econ 565, statistics course, 2 field courses Year - 1 Summer Summer research paper Year - 2 Fall EPSE 506 (Teaching), COMM 691 (Topics in Policy Analysis), statistics course, field course Year - 2 Winter Field courses, electives Year - 2 Summer Comprehensive exams Year - 3 Preparation and presentation of thesis proposal Year - 4 Preparation and defense of thesis From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 21 16:36:29 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:36:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CFP: Financial Cryptography '02 (fwd) Message-ID: From ravage at ssz.com Tue Aug 21 16:36:29 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:36:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CFP: Financial Cryptography '02 (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:13:13 -0400 From: Matt Blaze To: cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: CFP: Financial Cryptography '02 Call for Papers Financial Cryptography '02 March 11-14, 2002 Sonesta Beach Resort Southhampton, Bermuda Sponsored by the International Financial Cryptography Association Original papers are solicited on all aspects of financial data security and digital commerce for submission to the Sixth Annual Conference on Financial Cryptography (FC '02). FC '02 brings together researchers in the financial, legal, cryptologic, and data security fields to foster cooperation and exchange of ideas. Relevant topics include: Anonymity Infrastructure Design Audit Legal and Regulatory Authentication and Issues Identification Loyalty Mechanisms Certification and Peer-to-Peer Systems Authorization Payments and Commercial Transactions Micropayments and Contracts Privacy Digital Cash Risks Management Digital Rights Secure Banking Management Smart Cards Electronic Purses Trust Management Implementation Issues Watermarking Information Economics Instructions for Authors: Complete papers (or complete extended abstracts) must be at most fifteen (15) single-spaced standard pages in length and must be received before 23h59 UTC on November 4, 2001. All papers must be submitted electronically. (In exceptional circumstances, paper submissions can be accepted, but special arrangements must be made with the program chair prior to October 31, 2001.) Papers must be in either standard PostScript or PDF format, and should be submitted via electronic mail to fc02submit at crypto.com prior to the deadline. Note that submissions in formats other than PostScript or PDF, including word processor source formats such as MS Word or LaTeX, will be rejected. Submitted papers should include on the first page the title, all authors and their affiliations, a brief abstract, and a list of topical keywords. Papers must be original; submission of previously published material or papers under consideration in other conferences or journals is not permitted. Proposals for panels are also solicited, and should include a brief description of the panel as well as prospective participants. Panel proposals should be submitted by electronic mail to the same address, in plain ASCII format. Important Dates: Submissions due: November 4, 2001 Notifications to authors: December 23, 2001 Camera-ready papers due: February 4, 2002 General Chair: Nicko van Someren (nCipher) Program Committee: Matt Blaze, Program Chair (AT&T Labs) Dan Boneh (Stanford University) Stefan Brands (Zero Knowledge) Dan Geer (@stake) Ian Goldberg (Zero Knowledge) Angelos Keromytis (Columbia University) Paul Kocher (Cryptography Research) Ron Rivest (MIT) Tomas Sander (Intertrust) Rebecca Wright (AT&T Labs) --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From pzakas at toucancapital.com Tue Aug 21 15:41:46 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:41:46 -0400 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: isn't it easier to donate $$ to a political party and request an appointment? phillip > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM > [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Faustine > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 6:05 PM > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money > > > > Tim wrote: > > >But people should do what really drives them. Anyone going into law this > >late in the boom just to make money is probably going to be in for a > >rude awakening. Ditto for anyone going into it in order to do pro bono > >work on Cypherpunks issues. > > > Great points. If you're looking to make a difference re: > cypherpunk and pro- > libertarian issues and have a scientific and practical streak, > why not get > an advanced degree in policy analysis instead? You get a rock-solid > grounding in a number of critical disciplines, and put yourself in a > position to seriously affect policy on the broadest possible > stage. Not for > the ideological "purists" out there, but personally I don't see > anything at > all wrong with wringing every ounce of information you can get from the > real pros, whether they share your values or not. If there were a > number of > people committed to advancing libertarian issues who took this > approach, I > think it would be a great thing. > > Harvard is supposed to have the best program, but here's a little > something > I found online from the University of British Columbia which > explains what > it's all about. This one seems a little business-heavy, but other > analysis > programs have a lot more room to focus on technology policy. At > least this > gets you in the ballpark: > > > Policy Analysis and Strategy > > Overview > This PhD specialization covers both business strategy and public policy > analysis. It draws strongly on underlying foundations in economics and in > applied statistics. Topics in which faculty members have > expertise include > entrepreneurship and venture capital finance, international > investment, the > management of research and development, environmental management and > policy, experimental tests of game theory, competitive strategy and > competition policy, public enterprise and regulation, and international > trade policy. > > Undergraduate or masters-level training in economics and/or quantitative > disciplines such as mathematics, statistics or engineering would be a > typical background for qualified students. Students with undergraduate > backgrounds in commerce or business who have focused on the more > quantitative areas would also be well qualified for the program. > > Once students are admitted they have extensive interaction with faculty > members and attend a regular workshop run by the Policy Analysis > Division, > in addition to normal course work. The first major supervised research > project is undertaken in the student's first summer. Except for those > funded from outside sources, at least three years of funding is > guaranteed > to all admitted students. > > Program of Study > There is considerable flexibility in the programs of individual students. > All students are required to take a faculty-wide course in research > methodology and a faculty wide course in teaching methods. Other required > courses include: > Economics 500 Microeconomic Theory > Economics 565 Market Structure > Commerce 581 or equivalent Statistical Methods > Commerce 691 Advanced Topics in Policy Analysis > > The student will take at least four other courses to form two > "fields" (two > courses per field) and will normally take one or more additional > courses in > applied statistics or research methods. These courses will be chosen in > consultation with the Graduate Advisor and may be in the Commerce Faculty > or in other areas of study. > > Students normally complete their course work in two years and write > comprehensive exams at the end of the second year. However, students who > have taken prior graduate work may be able to complete course work > requirements more quickly. > > Sample Program Sequence > Year - 1 Fall COMM 693 (Research Methodology), COMM 581 (Statistical > Methods), Econ 500 (Microeconomic Theory), Elective or Field Course > Year - 1 Winter Econ 565, statistics course, 2 field courses > Year - 1 Summer Summer research paper > > Year - 2 Fall EPSE 506 (Teaching), COMM 691 (Topics in Policy Analysis), > statistics course, field course > Year - 2 Winter Field courses, electives > Year - 2 Summer Comprehensive exams > > Year - 3 Preparation and presentation of thesis proposal > > Year - 4 Preparation and defense of thesis From bleakbn at wernerco.com Tue Aug 21 16:04:51 2001 From: bleakbn at wernerco.com (Bleakney, Bryan N.) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:04:51 -0400 Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Pre-APPROVED: Process Credit cards Time: 8:12:20 AM Message-ID: <3586B77E3870D311A63F00508B0EE074031AA7B5@gvlexch1> I am working out of the office until August 22, 2001. If you need assistance, please contact the help desk at x2120. Otherwise, I will review your message upon my return. Thank You, Bryan N. Bleakney ============================================================= This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by returning the original message to the sender and then delete the message. Thank you. ============================================================= From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 21 19:19:31 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:19:31 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108220220.f7M2Kmf21580@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 04:30 PM, dmolnar wrote: > Perhaps in evaluating potential programs, it would be helpful to list > people in the policy + technology area who are worth looking into. Along > perhaps with which institutions they studied at? I'll start. I regret > that > I'm not familiar with this area, and so I'm sure I'll overlook many > interesting people. I'm also not sure what to do about people with some > policy interests who are primarily cryptographers -- do we include Ron > Rivest because of his work on electronic voting? Ron Rivest is a good example to make some points about. Suppose Ron were to have some kind of connection to a "policy" or "law" program (presumably at MIT). Would he be a good guy to study under? I'll answer. "Only if you favor his politics." Not that he demands loyalty, so far as I know, but that he is not particularly Cypherpunkish or libertarian. There is no particular reason why a Shamir or an Adleman or a Rivest should be useful. Probably studying under Varian at Berkeley, or Lessig at Stanford, would be better. (Though I don't think people study "under" law professors, do they? From my contacts at Stanford Law, via some talks I gave to Prof. Rader's classes, my impression is that the kids are racing through Stanford Law as fast as Daddy's money will take them, the better to get the big bucks at the prestigious law firms.) > L. Jean Camp (currently at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government) > > Was a student at CMU with Doug Tygar. Since then, Tygar has moved to > UC-Berkeley; I don't know if Berkeley has any similar technology + > policy > program. She has done some work which would be of interest, including > protocols for anonymous transactions, papers on how to handle law > enforcement, and "Pricing Security."(Maybe relevant to the recent debate > over insurance incentives for computer security; I haven't read it yet.) Hal Varian has done much basic work in things like congestion pricing for the Internet. A friend of mine, Robin Hanson, was connected with his group for a while. (I think Robin is now at George Mason U. in Northern Virginia...another place to look at.) Robin is an interesting example of this thread in action. After years of work as a programmer, and after developing the concept of "futures markets" ("I bid $160 that such and such will happen by 2003"), Robin decided to try to put his ideas to better use by going back to school. He didn't take a night school law school degree, thus allowing him to process wills and divorce papers in Outer Nowhere. No, he moved his family to Pasadena and spent several years at Caltech getting his Ph.D. in something related to game theory, economics, and policy. (Some of the people in his group were those who solved the general N-person fair slice of a pie problem. Long known to be solved perfectly for one slice, via "Alice cuts, Bob chooses," it wasn't obvious how to extend this to N slices.) Robin made some substantial economic sacrifices in giving up several years of Silicon Valley income for a load of debt. > > Michael Froomkin (U Miami law school) > http://www.law.tm/ > > Wrote "Flood Control on the Information Ocean." Among other things. Used > to show up on cypherpunks once upon a time. I don't see where he went, > so > perhaps it doesn't matter. Froomkin was fairly active on the list in 1993-96. I visited him when I was in the Miami area. We were on some panels together at some CFP conferences. He's been doing a lot of work on ICANN things now. This is a good example of a point I made in my earlier post: academic interests shift, following trends (translation: worth of granting tenure for). Clipper and key escrow were very hot topics around 1993-95. Today, it's stuff like ICANN and Napster (with Napster fading...). In a few years, these law professors may be concentrating on international whaling laws. (Lessig, in "Code," notes that he was almost exclusively focussed on Eastern European constitutional law issues following the collapse of the Iron Curtain, as this was where some hot issues were. The point being that a person going into "law" (or "policy") should only do so because they love the field of law (or policy) itself, not because they have some ideological axe to grind on crypto policy. "Do what you love, the money may follow." --Tim May From dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu Tue Aug 21 16:30:38 2001 From: dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu (dmolnar) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Harvard is supposed to have the best program, but here's a little something > I found online from the University of British Columbia which explains what > it's all about. This one seems a little business-heavy, but other analysis > programs have a lot more room to focus on technology policy. At least this Perhaps in evaluating potential programs, it would be helpful to list people in the policy + technology area who are worth looking into. Along perhaps with which institutions they studied at? I'll start. I regret that I'm not familiar with this area, and so I'm sure I'll overlook many interesting people. I'm also not sure what to do about people with some policy interests who are primarily cryptographers -- do we include Ron Rivest because of his work on electronic voting? -------------------------------------- L. Jean Camp (currently at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government) Was a student at CMU with Doug Tygar. Since then, Tygar has moved to UC-Berkeley; I don't know if Berkeley has any similar technology + policy program. She has done some work which would be of interest, including protocols for anonymous transactions, papers on how to handle law enforcement, and "Pricing Security."(Maybe relevant to the recent debate over insurance incentives for computer security; I haven't read it yet.) Home page: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/degreeprog/courses.nsf/wzByDirectoryName/L.JeanCamp Publications: http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.jcamp.academic.ksg/cv.html ------------------------------ Lorrie F. Cranor (ATT Research) http://lorrie.cranor.org/ Works on Publius, P3P, online voting, other privacy-related issues. Attended Washington University in St. Louis for her PhD. Has links to pages on "Social Informantics" and "Value-Sensitive Design" which may be of interest. (Personally, I am intrigued, but I have a low tolerance for the way in which these are talked about; which is part of why I was not a History of Science major.) ------------------------------- Susan Landau (Sun Microsystems) http://www.sun.com/research/people/slandau/ Went to MIT. Wrote _Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption_ with Whitfield Diffie. -------------------------------- Michael Froomkin (U Miami law school) http://www.law.tm/ Wrote "Flood Control on the Information Ocean." Among other things. Used to show up on cypherpunks once upon a time. I don't see where he went, so perhaps it doesn't matter. ---------------------------------------- By the way, what exactly do you *do* after you graduate from a technology and policy program? Every now and then I wonder if I will eventually end up in law school or a policy + technology program. The thought is alternately exciting and saddening. Then again, so is the prospect of being a "pure" researcher. -David Molnar From alq at fbi.gov Tue Aug 21 19:52:47 2001 From: alq at fbi.gov (Alfred Qeada) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:52:47 -0700 Subject: WEP is dead, how's the reception? Message-ID: <3B831E7F.BCEA7806@fbi.gov> So WEP is dead, and the following are known: 1. you can drive around a city and sniff data (one ref) 2. folks can point a pair of dishes at each other and do 10 miles w/out extra ampl. (many refs) I'm curious: what range can you intercept 802.11 data with reasonable S:N assuming that the source is *not* cooperating as in 2. above. Lets try to answer this. A 2-m dish could give 30 db? (Damn, used to know that function of wavelength...) How many times the default range does 30 db give? (Damn, 30 dB is probably a power figure? 30 db is 1,000 times... range would be a square of radiated power.. sqrt 1000 is 30 something.. range of 802.11 is probably 100 m? so 3 Km, 1.5 mi with a man-sized fixed dish... too directional to drive with... From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 21 19:58:20 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:58:20 -0700 Subject: Science News Online - Past Issues - 5/4/96 In-Reply-To: <3B83204C.61391B59@ssz.com> Message-ID: <200108220259.f7M2xaf21772@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 08:00 PM, Jim Choate wrote: > Speaking of splitting the cake, who gets the trim? > > http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/5_4_96/bob1.htm > > That's a 5-year-old cite. You obviously used a search engine to search for related articles from a post of mine. Have you no shame? --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 21 20:38:54 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 20:38:54 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108220340.f7M3eBf22170@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 08:25 PM, Mac Norton wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: >> >> This is a good example of a point I made in my earlier post: academic >> interests shift, following trends (translation: worth of granting >> tenure >> for). Clipper and key escrow were very hot topics around 1993-95. >> Today, >> it's stuff like ICANN and Napster (with Napster fading...). > > Tim makes a valid point here, but omits a companion point of > perhaps greater importance, in context. Faddish as it sometimes-- > well, hell, often--is, the academic side of the law is the > *only* side of the law that even begins to reward originality. > Those of us who actually represent people find that original > thinking is the bane of most judges, unless you can make them > believe the idea started with them. I fully agree with this point...I thought I indicated this by frequently referring to professors, academic programs, etc. The only "lawyers" who get to do any substantive research are those working for or with prestigious law professors, or for a few dozen justices. Everyone else is processing writs and regurgitating old boilerplate. Or maybe teaching young larvae who think they're about to change the world. > > Any parallels in software, both as to faddishness among > the "original" thinkers and leader-following otherwise? Many parallels. Nearly all programmers and engineers are doing what they are told to do. Only a small fraction are able to strike out in new directions. While we celebrate programmers like Linus Torvalds, most programmers are doing the programming equivalent of processing wills and divorces. Drones rule, especially in a drone-dominated field like "the law." Only study law if this is the kind of dronedom you prefer. --Tim May From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 21 20:56:17 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 20:56:17 -0700 Subject: Anonymous Posting In-Reply-To: <66f70c5843fa13734c5a449b76c1036d@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010821205617.009ffdd0@pop.sprynet.com> At 10:59 PM 8/21/01 -0400, An Metet wrote: > >So sign your messages. With your true name, if that's important. > And for eternity, whether you like it or not. From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 21 21:15:49 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:15:49 -0700 Subject: Anonymous Posting In-Reply-To: <66f70c5843fa13734c5a449b76c1036d@freedom.gmsociety.org> Message-ID: <200108220417.f7M4H8f22454@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 07:59 PM, An Metet wrote: > I find the content from remailers is far higher than average for the > list. I find it lower. Maybe it's just me. A lot of gibbering, ranting, and insults-without-traceability. Doesn't mean I don't "support" the legality and technology of remailers, just a comment on what traffic I see from them. Not surprising, of course. > > The technology isn't there yet, true, but it won't get there without > deploying it and using it. Why isn't this obvious? The technology won't get there by a particular person using remailers, inasmuch as the actions of that person don't cause others to change. This is also known as the "but what if everyone did what you're doing?" fallacy. I've grokked this since around 1966. Why isn't this obvious? > We may not be able to decide for others, but we can certainly look > down on so-called cypherpunks who, in many cases, cannot even encrypt > a message, never mind "writing code". Many, in fact, exhibit > hostility towards remailers and anonymity, as you do. 1) I used the Kremvax pseudo-remailer a year or two prior to the Cypherpunks list. Indequate, of course. 2) I used the earlier Cypherpunks remailers in their first month of operation, in 1992. More to the point, I architected the basic features remailers should have at the first Cypherpunks meeting. Check the archives if you doubt this. 3) I pulled off the "Blacknet" thing using both remailers and PGP in 1993. This was a fully-untraceable two-way information market. No fancy-shmantzy ZKS system was needed, providing one was willing to live within the latency constraints of using Usenet. (Still a reasonable goal for text messages. Receiving MPEG-2 movies untraceably will remain a thorny technical problem until bandwidth goes up by a large factor.) 4) I use remailers when I choose to. Other times I use my normal dial-up account. How do you know I am not some of the posts you are referring to? 5) Signing an article is giving away something of value. (For example, it might be used against the signer.) Absent some reason to sign, some "consideration," why sign a post? Why make it even slightly easier for a prosecutor to produce in court when nothing of value is being given in return? > > What I fail to understand is why such people are on this list in the > first place, but, as you say, people make their own decisions. > > (None of these comments apply to Tim May, of course.) > There are many enemies of liberty subscribed to the list, and posting to it. This is what happens when the "ideology-agnostic" crum-bums take control. "Cypherpunks write Rijndael C code...they don't care about ideology!" Fuck that. Cypherpunks care about both code _and_ ideology, else why bother? If Rijndael C code is all that matters, why not just drop Cypherpunks and join Perrypunks? Oh wait, it seems most nitwits _have_. Never mind. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 21 21:25:29 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:25:29 -0700 Subject: Science News Online - Past Issues - 5/4/96 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108220426.f7M4Qjf22501@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 09:08 PM, Mac Norton wrote: > Not sure I get the point. Is there a five year statute > or limitations on what you say, or is the article so > outdated in context as to be irrelevant? > MacN > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 08:00 PM, Jim Choate wrote: >> >>> Speaking of splitting the cake, who gets the trim? >>> >>> http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/5_4_96/bob1.htm >>> >>> >> >> That's a 5-year-old cite. >> >> You obviously used a search engine to search for related articles >> from a >> post of mine. Have you no shame? >> Think about the issue. If someone takes a post of mine, or yours, or anybody's, and says something _honest_ like, for example, "That's an interesting point. Doing some digging I found this article from several years ago...." then there would be no issue. I think this is the way Bill Stewart, for example, would begin an article. Choate, however, never does this. He just regurgitates cites he has found with search engines. I called him on this. That's all. Finding a 5-year-old cite, obviously the result of searching on a them, but without even commenting on context or relevance, is phony. It's the equivalent of a nonlawyer like me taking some scrap of legal comment and then quoting a legal precedent without any context. For example, "But Lopez v. Quesedilla, 16th, 3B, IIc established decedent's writ of certiori, am I not correct?" Phoniness squared. If you don't see this, you should become a lawyer. --Tim May From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 21 19:38:05 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:38:05 -0500 Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010820214307.028a78a0@frissell@brillig.panix. com> Message-ID: > At 06:02 PM 8/20/01 -0700, John Young wrote: > >Come to think of it Aimee's reminds of Jeff, and the timing > >is pretty good for another raid. > > > >Hark, wipe your disks. Mors et vita in manibus lingue. This terroristic defamation isn't funny, considering where I reside. If you spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret Squirrel mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and Crawford, Texas.) ~Aimee From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Wed Aug 22 00:57:59 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:57:59 -1000 Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010820214307.028a78a0@frissell@brillig.panix. com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010821214551.00de5e10@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 09:38 PM 8/21/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: >> At 06:02 PM 8/20/01 -0700, John Young wrote: >> >Come to think of it Aimee's reminds of Jeff, and the timing >> >is pretty good for another raid. >> > >> >Hark, wipe your disks. > >Mors et vita in manibus lingue. "Life and death are in the power of the tongue." Whose life, and whose death? >This terroristic defamation isn't funny, considering where I reside. Third rock from the sun? >If you spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret >Squirrel mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and >Crawford, Texas.) A chink in your armor. Why do you dance around the issue? Give it proper address. From mnorton at cavern.uark.edu Tue Aug 21 20:00:22 2001 From: mnorton at cavern.uark.edu (Mac Norton) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:00:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Arresting Henry Kissinger In-Reply-To: <119e43deee2b372c82f230093d51dd1b@mix.winterorbit.com> Message-ID: Well, "under our laws" may be a non sequitur here, as I don't think any of the discussion, with one possible exception, has involved any law of the US. As to other laws, most importantly the international body thereof, there is a respectable--note I do not say persuasive, as I don't have enough facts--that Kissinger as a "subordinate" was carrying out the policy of the state and, as such an actor, may be clothed with sovereign immunity. This is not an uncomplicated area of the law, and is one that gets very deep very fast. It's also one of those areas where the law is about as far divorced from common morality and decency as it ever gets. MacN On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > The Village Voice has an article which approaches the question of how > to make a citizen's arrest of Henry Kissinger: > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0133/ridgeway.php > > The article is apparently hostile to Kissinger, but plays down the > horror and extent of his crimes. Boilerplate excuses are offered. > Outrage at murder and kidnapping is curiously absent. > > "Kissinger was simply a very loyal, opportunist subordinate." > -- Daniel Ellsberg > > Does this exonerate other criminals under our laws? No. > Is it the truth? No. > From ravage at ssz.com Tue Aug 21 20:00:28 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:00:28 -0500 Subject: Science News Online - Past Issues - 5/4/96 Message-ID: <3B83204C.61391B59@ssz.com> Speaking of splitting the cake, who gets the trim? http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/5_4_96/bob1.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From mnorton at cavern.uark.edu Tue Aug 21 20:11:54 2001 From: mnorton at cavern.uark.edu (Mac Norton) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:11:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I know raccoons like my garbage and are creative about getting to it. Does that tell me something about Crawford, Texas? MacN On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret Squirrel > mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and Crawford, Texas.) > > ~Aimee From ravage at ssz.com Tue Aug 21 20:25:25 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:25:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Science News Online - Past Issues - 5/4/96 In-Reply-To: <200108220259.f7M2xaf21772@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 08:00 PM, Jim Choate wrote: > > > Speaking of splitting the cake, who gets the trim? > > > > http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/5_4_96/bob1.htm > That's a 5-year-old cite. > > You obviously used a search engine to search for related articles from a > post of mine. Have you no shame? It was the first cite I cam across that mentioned the 'gets so small that nobody cares' aspect...suited my purposes just dandy. Within that sentence is another whole aspect of the 'fair n-slice problem', for example; how does it get small? Consider the situation where you have a cake and n-people and use a scale to measure the slices. The goal being to get them all weighing the same within some measure of error. An associated question is, given a starting quantity (q), a number of players (n), and a given error (dq), what is the maximum number of 'slice and dices' you will need to go through? How does that change when it's a fixed percentage by volume error (ie %g/g)? Or perhaps (as likely with people) a fixed minimum volume that one can resolve (while this reduces for homogenious quantities, what happens when it's heterogenous)? From a applications perspective this seems like a pretty important issue. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From mnorton at cavern.uark.edu Tue Aug 21 20:25:41 2001 From: mnorton at cavern.uark.edu (Mac Norton) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:25:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108220220.f7M2Kmf21580@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > > This is a good example of a point I made in my earlier post: academic > interests shift, following trends (translation: worth of granting tenure > for). Clipper and key escrow were very hot topics around 1993-95. Today, > it's stuff like ICANN and Napster (with Napster fading...). Tim makes a valid point here, but omits a companion point of perhaps greater importance, in context. Faddish as it sometimes-- well, hell, often--is, the academic side of the law is the *only* side of the law that even begins to reward originality. Those of us who actually represent people find that original thinking is the bane of most judges, unless you can make them believe the idea started with them. Any parallels in software, both as to faddishness among the "original" thinkers and leader-following otherwise? MacN From keyser-soze at hushmail.com Tue Aug 21 22:45:32 2001 From: keyser-soze at hushmail.com (keyser-soze at hushmail.com) Date: Tue Aug 21 22:45:32 PDT 2001 Subject: Arresting Henry Kissinger Message-ID: <200108220544.f7M5i6658855@mailserver1c.hushmail.com> At 10:00 PM 8/21/2001 -0500, Mac Norton wrote: >Well, "under our laws" may be a non sequitur here, as I don't think any of the discussion, with one possible exception, has involved any law of the US. As to other laws, most importantly the international body thereof, there is a respectable--note I do not say persuasive, as I don't have enough facts--that Kissinger as a "subordinate" was carrying out the policy of the state and, as such an actor, may be clothed with sovereign immunity. > >This is not an uncomplicated area of the law, and is one that gets very deep very fast. It's also one of those areas where the law is about as far divorced from common morality and decency as it ever gets. MacN A "subordinate" carrying out the policy of the state may still be held responsible if their orders or actions were "manifestly illegal (mealy mouth words to be taken to mean whatever they wish)." Of course, this begs the question was Kissinger following any direct/explicit orders regarding what transpired in Chile or did take the details of carrying out the matter on himself thus offering the Pres plausible deniability. Journal of Conflict and Security Law Volume 6, Issue 1: June 2001. http://www3.oup.co.uk/jconsl/current/pdf/060003.pdf The Boundaries of Liability In International Criminal Law, or `Selectivity by Stealth' Robert Cryer. ---------------------------------------- 3.1 Superior Orders The issue of superior orders has traditionally been a dif ?cult one, although to read the Nuremberg IMT Charter on the matter,those thinking it to be simple could be forgiven.The Nuremberg IMT Charter simply provides:[t ]he fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility,but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. .... Still, both Control Council Law 10 and the Nuremberg Principles  asserted the view that superior orders were not a defence (Principle IV). This is possibly theNuremberg Principle around which most controversy has centred.A major reason for this has been the relatively low uptake for this position in national laws. This need not be fatal to the claim that the Nuremberg provision represents the law,but the position is weakened by the presence of contrary practice.This contrary practice began in the Nuremberg subsequent proceedings , in which US tribunals,in the Einsatzgruppen and High Command cases,seemed to use the manifest illegality test,as did certain other judgments in the direct post-war period. Expressions of that test have continued in various cases up to the present day, although the defence has been generally rejected, on the facts at least. In the sphere of international legislation, suggestions were made to include provisions relating to superior orders. All were rejected as they did not gather enough support. The ILC has wavered on the! total exclusion of the defence, and academic opinion has been split. The schism is between those asserting the manifest illegality test, and those adopting the position that superior orders are never a defence per se, but may be a relevant factor for other defences, such as duress. In practice, the difference may not be particularly important, as the orders in cases coming to trial will probably be considered manifestly illegal. That does not mean it will never be so, particularly in matters such as targeting,where the application of the rule to the facts may be dif?cult.B y the early 1990s, the simple fact was that either position could be asserted and receive a fair level of support. ... Opposition came from another group led by the US,who clung to the manifest illegality test,as the position,lex lata .79 The result was a compromise,and not comfortable one. Article 33 reads: 1.The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a government or of superior,whether military or civilian,shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless: (a)That person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question; (b)The person did not know that the order was unlawful;and (c)The order was not manifestly unlawful. 2.For the purposes of this article,orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 21 22:53:40 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:53:40 -0700 Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108220554.f7M5suf22908@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 10:45 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: >>> spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret Squirrel >>> mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and >> Crawford, Texas.) >>> >>> ~Aimee > >> I know raccoons like my garbage and are creative >> about getting to it. Does that tell me something >> about Crawford, Texas? >> MacN > > Uhm, no. The SS is very pro. And that is THE DETAIL. (As for me, I > figure > somebody can read my communication attributes. On second thought... > *ponder* > I think a keystroke logger would be a good thing for me.) Realize the > cultural differences. A bunch of highly-educated, clean-cut professional > agents breaking into a female's house around here... it could be that > some > women around here don't want to issue warrants -- they want to issue > invitations. > > I have an interest in VIP privacy problems, so I'm appalled by the > circus > and fanfare. I imagine they wanted some solitude -- what little they can > steal. I had a cabin in CLOSE proximity, and I didn't gawk once. All I > know: > I now have take-out prime rib down the road. ???? I can't make sense of _any_ of this. Do you _ever_ write clearly? --Tim May From anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org Tue Aug 21 19:59:41 2001 From: anmetet at freedom.gmsociety.org (An Metet) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:59:41 -0400 Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: <66f70c5843fa13734c5a449b76c1036d@freedom.gmsociety.org> Faustine wrote: > So why is it that the vast majority of the technical and insightful > contributions here seem to come from people who aren't averse to > using a reasonable simulacrum of a real name and address? I find the content from remailers is far higher than average for the list. > I made the deliberate choice not to use a remailer because I think > it's more interesting to contribute while having a prior body of > posts "attached" to me. People come to know more what to expect--and > if I irritate/bore/piss them off too much, they stop reading > me. Which is exactly as it should be. So sign your messages. With your true name, if that's important. > Though if you're after complete privacy re: your opinions and the > details of your life, you're better off not writing them down in the > first place, here or anywhere else. The technology isn't there yet, true, but it won't get there without deploying it and using it. Why isn't this obvious? > I assume everyone here weighed those considerations for themselves > before they got here: as far as I'm concerned, nobody has the > slightest business deciding it for anyone else. Don't worry, the cypherpunks list isn't going anywhere. It's just not realistic to put that genie back in the bottle. It would have to be a separate list entirely or one which rode on the current cypherpunks list. We may not be able to decide for others, but we can certainly look down on so-called cypherpunks who, in many cases, cannot even encrypt a message, never mind "writing code". Many, in fact, exhibit hostility towards remailers and anonymity, as you do. What I fail to understand is why such people are on this list in the first place, but, as you say, people make their own decisions. (None of these comments apply to Tim May, of course.) From ravage at ssz.com Tue Aug 21 21:03:16 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:03:16 -0500 Subject: News4Jax - Proposal Wants To Keep Big Brother's Eye Shut Message-ID: <3B832F04.E6C71754@ssz.com> http://www.news4jax.com/jax/news/stories/news-92779620010821-150801.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From mnorton at cavern.uark.edu Tue Aug 21 21:08:58 2001 From: mnorton at cavern.uark.edu (Mac Norton) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:08:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Science News Online - Past Issues - 5/4/96 In-Reply-To: <200108220259.f7M2xaf21772@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: Not sure I get the point. Is there a five year statute or limitations on what you say, or is the article so outdated in context as to be irrelevant? MacN On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 08:00 PM, Jim Choate wrote: > > > Speaking of splitting the cake, who gets the trim? > > > > http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/5_4_96/bob1.htm > > > > > > That's a 5-year-old cite. > > You obviously used a search engine to search for related articles from a > post of mine. Have you no shame? > > --Tim May From unicorn at schloss.li Tue Aug 21 23:31:15 2001 From: unicorn at schloss.li (Black Unicorn) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:31:15 -0700 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money References: <200108211909.f7LJ9Mf19487@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <005a01c12ad4$1d7fe980$00010a0a@thinkpad574> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:08 PM Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money > Since none of the former, current, or larval lawyers have weighed in on > the issue, I'll give my two bits. > > The question is this: is it a good idea for list members to go to law > school? Issues of accredited vs. unaccredited, reputable vs. > correspondence vs. diploma mills, etc. Unless you really love the law, really love spending hours and hours in dusty libraries looking at old books and enjoy the smell of moldy paper, don't bother. Law school has its uses but even the top 10 schools are all P/L centers for universities now more than they are about scholarship. Some people get quite a lot out of a legal education. They usually end up being trusts and estates attorneys or something. Just about every lawyer I asked about law school discouraged me from going. I went anyhow. It seems to work that way. The first day of law school I remember they passed out an anonymous questionnaire to everyone in the room asking why you came to law school, some other lefty stuff about your politics and what you intended to do with your degree after graduation. As it turned out 60%+ indicated their intention to go into public interest law of one sort or another. Before the last exam my last year they handed out the same questionnaire they had three years earlier. The results: 90some% of the same class had accepted positions in corporate private practice. Do not go to law school suffering from the delusion that you are going to come out, join a big money firm and change the world by quashing the DMCA. Perhaps you will, but the partners are hiring their little associates for one reason, to pay for those cherry wood offices and the but the odds are awfully slim you will be working on the DMCA. There are so many lawyers out there right now you might find yourself stuck without much in the way of prospects. Professional basketball is a decent alternative. I've never felt more like a prostitute than I did when interviewing for large corporate firms out of law school. They send three or four senior associates to the city they are visiting, rent a hotel room in the Marriott and put a chair outside the door. You show up five minutes early, sit in the chair in the hall, looking at the other candidate interviewing with another firm sitting at the other end of the hall in a chair, and knock when your appointed time has arrived. The last hooker who was in there leaves and you go in, sell yourself in a foursome for 30 minutes then get up when you hear the next knock and prepare to turn your next trick 30 minutes later. Lather, rinse, repeat. > First, there are obviously already a huge number of lawyers in the U.S. > I can't speak for Europe, where the "Eurorights" person is presumably > from, but it's crystal-clear that there are many, many lawyers in the > U.S. And a lot of kids in law school. And yet lawyers are working as > low-paid paralegals, doing clerical work processing wills and divorces, > and joining "law factories" where they probably make less money than > engineers. Do the math to figure out what it takes to bill 2200-2400 hours a year. That's BILL mind you, not work. That's pretty much what you will be doing for the first 4 years as a corporate attorney. > Second, most of these lawyers won't be doing "interesting" work. See > above. Certainly most won't be doing crypto or EFF-type work..unless > they go to work for EFF, EPIC, etc. Those with a history of incisive > comments on mailing lists and in crypto-related fora may find it > possible to get in with these kinds of outfits. I'm not sure how EFF pays, I suspect not particularly well. The high end corporate firms generally start their first year associates around $110-125k or so for top end of the top school graduates. More in New York maybe. The _median_ salary for a Stanford law grad is $95,000.00 if they go into corporate practice. Just over $40,000.00 for public sector work. > (But why bother? The D.C. groups are mostly lobbying groups...and my > strong impression is that they are mainly oriented around their founders > and chief mouthpieces. A junior lawyer would mainly be a water carrier > for one of the luminaries.) Bingo. You certainly built a rolodex tho. (Given who's in the white house now I'd try Baker Botts) > Third, "pro bono" Cypherpunks-related work is not very remunerative, Remove the "very" above and you've got it on the head. > by > definition, and also not very common. Even if one thinks of the Parker > and Bell cases as "Cypherpunks-related," which I don't, there are not > many of these cases. The recent cases of Dmitry/Adobe and West/Oklahoma > are more related, but these are likely to be taken over by high-profile > experts if they go to trial. The only real fun in law I ever had was in litigation. Litigation is VERY hard to get into. At the same time of the three major name litigation firms I was more intimately familiar with one held the esteemed reputation for having had _every single_ male partner in the firm suffer a coronary of some type or another, the other had two partners commit suicide in two years. I won't even go into the state of affairs in the third. > What I'm saying is that a few lawyers will end up in interesting areas. Yep. > The vast majority will be off in Skokie and Boise and L.A., processing > immigration requests, meeting with DWI clients, and processing OSHA > forms for Fortune 500 companies. Worse. Writing contracts. Even worse, reviewing already written contracts. > I base this on statistics, on talking > to some lawyer friends, and on experiences my brother in L.A. tells me > about: he has some lawyer friends who went to UCLA Law School, some even > studying under such luminaries in the online world as Eugene Volokh, and > it's "slim pickings" these days for many of them. They simply don't have > the luxury of picking cases to work on...they're grubbing to make ends > meet, to pay off loans, and to maybe, just maybe, get a nominally > permanent job at an acceptably prestigious law firm. A friend of mine is > now a senior IP lawyer at a leading Silicon Valley law firm, so it > _does_ happen. However, he left Intel in the mid-70s and went to > Stanford Law School, so he beat the rush and he had the street > credentials from his Intel work. Getting into law this late in the game > is not for the faint of heart. It's past the curve. Most decent IP/Patent firms pretty much REQUIRE an advanced engineering degree (Masters/PhD) from MIT/Cal Tech/etc. plus the law degree on the way before they will even allow you to interview with them. > Fourth, much too much is being made of the role of law in pushing or > enhancing Cypherpunks-type themes. This goes back to Lessig's > custom-law-technology analysis again. Fighting a few cases where some > hacker is busted for being stupid is all well and good, but these cases > are NOT altering the landscape in ways that certain technologies are. Agreed. Without getting too deep into a rat hole I still think that law can tell coders and architects quite a lot about the neat places to be looking, and the dangerous places to tread. It's a tool. Same as watching the stock market reports. But we've been over that. > I suspect a lot of people these days (more than the several on the list > who have spoken up) are talking about law school is that it's a way to > change a career. Seen most cynically, it's a nebulous "in several years > I'll be doing something different!" sort of shift. A lot easier to make > plans to go to law school than to write a new software application, if > one doesn't have the inspiration, that is. Don't bother with law school as a career change unless you: 1. Can score above the 96% on the LSAT. 2. Can get into a top 20 school. (Better a top 15 or top 10 school). 3. Can finish in the top third of your class (hint: the bottom of the curve doesn't follow you to law school and some of the idiots there have been threatened with being cut out of the will if they don't follow in Dad's shoes). 4. Can tolerate 3-5 years of 14 hour day ass kissing of the highest and most offensive order after graduation. > Fifth, consider that I can think of at least two vocal people on this > list who went to law school and got J.D.s One or both may have passed > bar exams. Neither are practicing anything related to law at this time. > (Though their "legal training" may be slightly useful in their > careers...that's not for me to say.) A third lawyer I'm not sure > about...he was at a software company, but doing law-related stuff. > There's a fourth lawyer, who may be a professor, but he's very quiet > these days. Another former list member is definitely a lawyer, and has > been active in crypto and ICANN issues. I find law is extremely useful in my day to day affairs but I'm probably not a good example. I got quite a bit out of being in the legal world in D.C., particularly rolodex wise, at exactly the time crypto and intelligence issues were getting to be a big deal in the public eye (Clipper, export regulation, etc. etc.) but I had a certain level of exposure that was probably atypical of most legal types on the Hill and I never intended to go seriously into private practice as a career. (As an aside I went to a "alternative careers for law graduates" seminar once. There were two attendees including me and the speaker). A J.D. is a professional degree here. A vocational degree in the United States, as it were. (Much different in Europe). Really the J.D. program in the U.S. should be a 5 year PhD type program but that wouldn't make the universities anywhere near as much money because they couldn't command the number of applications they do now. It's all about future value of the degree and that high starting salary. (Contrast this with the fact that Stanford University's Law School, ranked #2 right now, has a 61% national bar passage rate. Nearly 40% of Stanford students fail the bar the first time). > I just don't see spending 3-4 years in law school as being very > exciting. If you can go and not care much about your grades, and have the money, and not intend to practice, it could be amusing. Then again, given these circumstances so could medical school. > And I don't mean my personal opinion of whether I'd go to law > school or not: I mean that not much exciting work is being done by > lawyers. Most are tucked-away in cubicles, in government offices, in > small one-person offices scattered hither and yon. Processing wills. > Forwarding escrow documents. Reviewing divorce papers. Ugh. Yep. The most interesting lawyers I know are either professors, took high level positions in government, or do something OTHER than practice law. > But people should do what really drives them. Anyone going into law this > late in the boom just to make money is probably going to be in for a > rude awakening. Ditto for anyone going into it in order to do pro bono > work on Cypherpunks issues. Or anyone going into investment banking. See today's wall street journal on the (lack of) prospects for MBAs. (CSFB I think it was, indicated that it doesn't plan to hire ANY until 2003). > For the relatively few people--you know who you are--who have a sharp > mind and are laying the groundwork for working in the "cyberlaw" > industry, my analysis may not apply. There will always be exceptions. What drives the hoards of law students we see today is that $125k/year average starting salary figure. The $75 application fee starts to look worth it pretty quickly. They usually don't know what they are getting into and no one in the admissions office is in a rush to tell them either. Some schools are much more cut-throat than others too. It can be a very unpleasant experience. (I might add that you should be prepared to be celibate for 2 years as no law student I knew had much of a sex life until after the second year internship- from which most offers are extended- was secured). Cypherpunk types will do better reading this tidbit from U.S. News: Lehigh ranked high for parties ** University nudges up to No. 15 among "Party Schools. ' It's 3rd best place to find beer, 9th best for pot. > --Tim May From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Wed Aug 22 02:42:09 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:42:09 -1000 Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. In-Reply-To: <200108220554.f7M5suf22908@slack.lne.com> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010821233319.00ddf180@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 10:53 PM 8/21/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 10:45 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: >???? > >I can't make sense of _any_ of this. Do you _ever_ write clearly? My best guess, no. Even I could not decipher that. Reese From ravage at ssz.com Tue Aug 21 21:43:10 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:43:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Science News Online - Past Issues - 5/4/96 In-Reply-To: <200108220426.f7M4Qjf22501@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > then there would be no issue. > > I think this is the way Bill Stewart, for example, would begin an > article. > > Choate, however, never does this. He just regurgitates cites he has > found with search engines. Actually it was a little more than that. I had added a query which in your haste to bitch you just jumped right over. Oh, yeah, it's not in the 'TCM Approved' format... -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From juicy at melontraffickers.com Wed Aug 22 00:13:34 2001 From: juicy at melontraffickers.com (A. Melon) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:13:34 -0700 Subject: Arresting Henry Kissinger Message-ID: <7d32f02e49b4ee745b3423a90e2dc99a@melontraffickers.com> > Well, "under our laws" may be a non sequitur here, as I don't think > any of the discussion, with one possible exception, has involved any > law of the US. Please acquaint yourself with the crimes under discussion. "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" is one source. There are many others. > As to other laws, most importantly the international body thereof, > there is a respectable--note I do not say persuasive, as I don't > have enough facts--that Kissinger as a "subordinate" was carrying > out the policy of the state and, as such an actor, may be clothed > with sovereign immunity. Kissinger was hardly a flunky. As chair of the "40 Committee" from 1969-1976 Kissinger personally oversaw all U.S. covert actions. He had tremendous power in the Nixon and Ford administrations. ("Do not follow the President's orders without clearing them through me.") And, since when is being a flunky an excuse? We're all supposed to follow the laws. It's basic to our system of government that the executive branch and its employees are not above the law. The U.S. hanged a number of people at the end of World War II as "war criminals" who had less relative responsibility than Henry Kissinger. The U.S. supports international tribunals now. Therefore, under the stated beliefs of the U.S. government Kissinger should be subject to these sorts of proceedings. Concerns about international tribunals are valid. If you reject them for all leaders you may be making sense. But, it sounds as if you reject them only for Kissinger. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 21 22:45:43 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:45:43 -0500 Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > > spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret Squirrel > > mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and > Crawford, Texas.) > > > > ~Aimee > I know raccoons like my garbage and are creative > about getting to it. Does that tell me something > about Crawford, Texas? > MacN Uhm, no. The SS is very pro. And that is THE DETAIL. (As for me, I figure somebody can read my communication attributes. On second thought... *ponder* I think a keystroke logger would be a good thing for me.) Realize the cultural differences. A bunch of highly-educated, clean-cut professional agents breaking into a female's house around here... it could be that some women around here don't want to issue warrants -- they want to issue invitations. I have an interest in VIP privacy problems, so I'm appalled by the circus and fanfare. I imagine they wanted some solitude -- what little they can steal. I had a cabin in CLOSE proximity, and I didn't gawk once. All I know: I now have take-out prime rib down the road. ~Aimee From nobody at mix.winterorbit.com Tue Aug 21 17:04:33 2001 From: nobody at mix.winterorbit.com (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 02:04:33 +0200 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition Message-ID: John Young wrote: > Time to lay off Jim Choate, too, Sandy, smells like hysteria. What, are they still posting to this list? ;-) John, killfiles work great. Once you try it, you'll never go back. From nobody at mix.winterorbit.com Tue Aug 21 17:53:00 2001 From: nobody at mix.winterorbit.com (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 02:53:00 +0200 Subject: Arresting Henry Kissinger Message-ID: <119e43deee2b372c82f230093d51dd1b@mix.winterorbit.com> The Village Voice has an article which approaches the question of how to make a citizen's arrest of Henry Kissinger: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0133/ridgeway.php The article is apparently hostile to Kissinger, but plays down the horror and extent of his crimes. Boilerplate excuses are offered. Outrage at murder and kidnapping is curiously absent. "Kissinger was simply a very loyal, opportunist subordinate." -- Daniel Ellsberg Does this exonerate other criminals under our laws? No. Is it the truth? No. From saromase at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 05:14:44 2001 From: saromase at yahoo.com (stevan wijaya) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 05:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: credit card number Message-ID: <20010822121444.10967.qmail@web20106.mail.yahoo.com> i need valid credit card number,please!! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 22 05:45:47 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:45:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CFP: Financial Cryptography '02 (fwd) Message-ID: From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 22 05:45:47 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:45:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CFP: Financial Cryptography '02 (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 22:12:20 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: Digital Bearer Settlement List , dcsb at ai.mit.edu, e$@vmeng.com, coderpunks at toad.com Subject: CFP: Financial Cryptography '02 --- begin forwarded text From stephanie.key at etransmail2.com Wed Aug 22 07:51:24 2001 From: stephanie.key at etransmail2.com (Stephanie Key) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:51:24 -0700 Subject: Product Give Away - Take 5 ! Message-ID: <200108221937.f7MJbNR08009@ak47.algebra.com> If you cannot view this message, please visit http://www.globalzon2k.com/news_vercheck1.htm G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. is sending this email to its subscribed users. You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com FREE Products shipped in Full Retail Packaging Pick up to 5 of each! Fortune. (149.99 value) DataScan (149.99 value) eXpressForms 2000 (129.99 value) TransForm Personal (59.99 value) VersaClips (19.99 value) ? Fortune: Relationship manager and addressbook ? DataScan: Business card and telephone directory scanning software ? ExpressForms 2000: Forms, Invitation and Greeting Card generator to publish on the Internet ? TransForm Personal: Scan and convert your paper forms into editable electronic forms in seconds. ? VersaClips: Accentuate your checks, website and documents with handcrafted background images. Click on any of the graphics above to add your FREE products! About VersaCheck 2001 VersaCheck enables businesses and individuals to create their own custom checks. All it takes is a desktop printer, blank paper and VersaCheck software! The checks look professional and are fully bankable. VersaCheck is available at most computer retail stores and online. It works with most accounting and personal finance software such as Quicken, Money, QuickBooks, Peachtree and many more. Four popular versions to choose from: VersaCheck 2001 Personal Home & Business Professional Premium VersaCheck Comes with High Quality Blank Security Check Stock Available Colors: Tan, Burgundy, Green and Blue Sample Check Please call 800-303-2620 for questions or assistance regarding this offer. Thank you very much. Best regards, Stephanie Key Customer Relationship Executive 800-303-2620 To change your communication preferences Click Here or simply reply to this Email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. Copyright © Globalzon, Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 11472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aimee.farr at pobox.com Wed Aug 22 06:46:19 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:46:19 -0500 Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. In-Reply-To: <200108220554.f7M5suf22908@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: > On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 10:45 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: > > >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > >>> spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret Squirrel > >>> mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and > >> Crawford, Texas.) > >>> > >>> ~Aimee > > > >> I know raccoons like my garbage and are creative > >> about getting to it. Does that tell me something > >> about Crawford, Texas? > >> MacN > > > > Uhm, no. The SS is very pro. And that is THE DETAIL. (As for me, I > > figure > > somebody can read my communication attributes. On second thought... > > *ponder* > > I think a keystroke logger would be a good thing for me.) Realize the > > cultural differences. A bunch of highly-educated, clean-cut professional > > agents breaking into a female's house around here... it could be that > > some > > women around here don't want to issue warrants -- they want to issue > > invitations. > > > > I have an interest in VIP privacy problems, so I'm appalled by the > > circus > > and fanfare. I imagine they wanted some solitude -- what little they can > > steal. I had a cabin in CLOSE proximity, and I didn't gawk once. All I > > know: > > I now have take-out prime rib down the road. > > ???? > > I can't make sense of _any_ of this. Do you _ever_ write clearly? > > --Tim May It went through some redaction. It gives rise to a form of elliptical conversation. ~Aimee From mikeedso at bemybabey.com Wed Aug 22 05:47:16 2001 From: mikeedso at bemybabey.com (mikeedso at bemybabey.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:47:16 -0400 Subject: travel confirmation 17388 Message-ID: <00001d7b7fb0$000037c5$000043ec@mail.bemybabey.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1732 bytes Desc: not available URL: From frissell at panix.com Wed Aug 22 06:25:37 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:25:37 -0400 Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: References: <200108160201.f7G21DC13974@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010816172636.020bc8d0@brillig.panix.com> At 10:24 PM 8/15/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >Liar, check the archives. I never said anybody was dangerous. What I did >say was that I felt the C-A-C-L philosophy was dangerous. I stand by that. >I believe that were the C-A-C-L philosophy to take hold the results would >make the death counts from Nazism and Communism in this century pail in >comparison. You have to be wired a little funny to think that a free society would suffer the murder rate of those slave societies with their organized mechanisms of extinction. Killing the 170 Megs of people that socialists of all stripes murdered in the 20th century is hard work. Takes a big killing organization. For fun I tried to guestimate the number of murders private individuals committed in the 20th century and even making assumptions that inflated the final figure, I was only able to come up with a max of 30 megs of people. (Derived by applying the peak US murder rate of 10 per 100,000 to a somewhat arbitrary average world population of 3 billion during this century) DCF ---- In normal operation, a 1000 MGW coal-fired power plant releases more radioactivity than a 1000 MGW nuclear power plant. From freelot at freelotto.com.ln Wed Aug 22 01:35:39 2001 From: freelot at freelotto.com.ln (Free Lotto) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:35:39 +0200 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108220739.AAA03478@toad.com> From flofest720 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Aug 22 10:47:26 2001 From: flofest720 at yahoo.co.uk (flofest720 at yahoo.co.uk) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:47:26 -0700 Subject: FREE $200 dollars to ALL VISITORS! Message-ID: <200108221747.KAA27012@ecotone.toad.com> How Would You Like $200 FREE? How Would You Like Others To Send YOU $20 CASH For LIFE? How Would you like to GET PAID by the MINUTE? Would you like this Money RIGHT NOW? For more info, Visit: http://www.magic-nj.com/powerads/suite37348 Best regards David Festus If this offends anyone, please forgive me. Further e-mails may be stopped by sending a reply to : flofest at esalesbroker.com with Remove in the subject line. From freematt at coil.com Wed Aug 22 09:21:24 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:21:24 -0400 Subject: Top Firms Retreat Into Bunker To Ward Off 'Anarchists' Message-ID: From lavalake at hotmail.com Wed Aug 22 05:46:41 2001 From: lavalake at hotmail.com (Moon Kat) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:46:41 +0000 Subject: Top firms retreat into bunker to ward off 'Anarchists' Message-ID: Hi Matt Not sure if you've seen this one already but here goes. Quite where the anti-capitalists are going to get a thermonuclear bomb from isn't explained in the article but surely such a device would compromise their "Neo-Luddite" principles anyway? Yours, in a fallout shelter, somewhere west of London dK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOP FIRMS RETREAT INTO BUNKER TO WARD OFF 'ANARCHISTS' "Some of Britain's biggest companies are running their Internet operations on systems installed in a 300ft-deep nuclear blast-proof bunker to protect customers from violent anti-capitalist campaigners. They are renting space in hermetically sealed rooms capable of withstanding a one Kiloton explosion, electro-magnetic 'pulse bombs', electronic eavesdropping and chemical and biological warfare." This is from an article by Steve Boggan in the The Independent, 13 June 2001 - http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/update/story.jsp?story=77374: It seems that hundreds of companies have already installed systems in The Bunker - formerly known as RAF Ash, outside Sandwich in Kent - and dozens more are understood to be queuing up for space. The article quotes a Dr Ian Angell, professor of information systems at the London School of Economics and author of The New Barbarian Manifesto, as saying: "This isn't paranoia or fantasy, this is the future. There are sophisticated anti-capitalists out there who feel a great deal of resentment against the business world. These are the new Luddites and, given half a chance, they would smash the machine to pieces." Behind The Bunker is a company called AL Digital Communications, established by the brothers Adam and Ben Laurie and Dominic Hawken. "The AL Digital team made a sealed bid - still secret, according to the Ministry of Defence - and the 60,000sq ft bunker with 18 acres of land was theirs," writes Boggan. There are three back-up power systems big enough to fire up a small town. There is also a fire station, vast underground fuel and water tanks and an array of cameras on corridors and servers. "You have to understand. Future wars will be fought by capitalists and anti-capitalists as society polarises," Professor Angell is reported as saying. "When that happens, control of information will be as important as control of territory used to be in conventional conflicts. If you can stop your enemy from destroying your information, then you have a good chance of winning the war." __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From gareth at systolix.co.uk Wed Aug 22 05:01:05 2001 From: gareth at systolix.co.uk (Gareth Jones) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:01:05 +0100 Subject: Now Available - FilterSim Version 2.0 Message-ID: <632F4249BF84D4118F7100D0B7B0C5AD0FEB59@NTSERVER> SYSTOLIX HAVE RELEASED FILTERSIM VERION 2.0 - INTEGRATED FILTER DESIGN, SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS A fully working trial version of FilterSim 2.0 can be downloaded now from Systolix web site at http://www.systolix.com/swdownload.htm. FilterSim is the latest DSP development tool from Systolix. It combines a sophisticated multi-stage filter design tool with an integrated digital simulator. Simulation results can be viewed using the built-in signal viewer and analysis tools, allowing designers to study filter characteristics and quantisation effects in detail. Version 2.0 is a complete rewrite of the tool, it includes a new simplified user interface to streamline the process of specifying complex multi-stage filters. Here is a summary of the key features, more information can be found at http://www.systolix.com/fsintro.htm. * FILTER SPECIFICATION & DESIGN * Import externally generated FIR / IIR coefficients for analysis / re-quantisation Design filters to user specified quantisation Export coefficients Simple graphical entry of filter networks - Support of multi-stage (FIR / IIR / mixed) - Support for multi-rate filters (decimating / interpolating / resampling) - Support for multiple levels of quantisation in a single network Support for multiple filter types including IIR Filters - Butterworth / Chebychev I-II / Elliptic - Low Pass / High Pass / Band Pass / Band Stop Windowed FIR Filters - Kaiser / Blackman / Von Hann / Hamming / Rectangular - Low Pass / High Pass / Band Pass / Band Stop Equiripple FIR filters - Low Pass / High Pass / Band Pass / Band Stop Half-Band FIR Filters (Window & Equiripple) Pulse-shaping Filters - Raised Cosine / Root Raised Cosine / Gaussian Hilbert Transforms * FILTER SIMULATION * Extensive simulation capabilities including - Fast, optimised simulation engine - Built in signal generation functions - Import user test data - User definable quantisation for coefficients and data - Define unique quantisation per stage * FILTER ANALYSIS * Powerful analysis capabilities including - Graphical view of magnitude/phase/impulse response - Built-in FFT - Graphical viewer for simulation/FFT data - Automatic system transfer function evaluation - Automatic calculation of SNR / THD For further enquires about FilterSim please email filtersim at systolix.co.uk. From jya at pipeline.com Wed Aug 22 13:15:27 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:15:27 -0700 Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108221722.NAA12112@mclean.mail.mindspring.net> >JYA may be obscure but you're just loony. And I'm warning you it's the minerals in Texas water, we can't help ourselves from being apes of Lyndon Johnson, Billy Sol Estes, Steve Jackson, Judge Roy Bean, Ike Eisenhower, George Shrub, Janis Joplin, Governors Ma Ferguson and Pappy Lee O'Daniel, the feces-eating Lipan Apaches, Pecos Man, and the long-line of dust-suckers of the Big Meteor effluvia that still blows from the toxic sand outside Monahans. Jim Choate is a plastic honky-tonk Austinite by comparison, all smart-ass hook-em-horns college-fucked without a glimmer of the origin of the meteor alien brain motes he barfs up as URLs. Dallas and Houston, no, everything east of Big Spring, might as well be Six Flags over OklaArkaLou. Except San Antonio, which still has enough cultivated Mexicans from pre-United States to make it no more useless than Europe and Asia and, shhh, the Golden State. Did you know that 2/3 of the daily waste removed from the London Underground is human hair and skin flakes whipped off the owners by swirling wind? Highly flammable. That might be why California has so many wild fires. From jeffersgary at hotmail.com Wed Aug 22 11:43:59 2001 From: jeffersgary at hotmail.com (Gary Jeffers) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:43:59 -0500 Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. Message-ID: My fellow Cypherpunks, It has been stated that Gnutella is completely decentralized. This is not so. In order to get started with a Gnutella search, you need to use a Gnutella search provider to find Gnutella groups. Would it be possible to write some kind of scanner that would look at an ISP, say for example, htc.net and display all the Gnutella users there? We seem to be over the "fax effect" (a Snelling point?) magnitude where automated hunting for Gnutella users would be practical. Also, maybe the scanner could search thru various ISP's as well as particular ones. If it did close ISPs 1st, then it could help with the efficency of file searches. Also, note that Gnutella deals in files - ANY kind of files. I suppose that most? Cypherpunks know that - but just to be sure. If a scanner were written and widely deployed, then I think that the problem of crushing Gnutella would be at least a magnitude harder. Maybe the Gnutella support sites would promote and distribute such a scanner? Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Aug 22 05:10:05 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:10:05 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: IP: Wired: Wireless Networks in Big Trouble (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 05:04:54 -0700 From: David Farber Reply-To: farber at cis.upenn.edu To: ip-sub-1 at majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: Wired: Wireless Networks in Big Trouble >Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:41:11 -0700 >From: "Robert J. Berger" >Organization: UltraDevices Inc. > >Wireless Networks in Big Trouble >By Michelle Delio >http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,46187,00.html >2:20 p.m. Aug. 20, 2001 PDT > >Wireless networks are a little less secure today with the public >release of "AirSnort," (http://airsnort.sourceforge.net/) >a tool that can surreptitiously grab and analyze data moving across >just about every major wireless network. > >When enough information has been captured, AirSnort can then piece >together the system's master password. > >In other words, hackers and/or eavesdroppers using AirSnort can just >grab what they want from a company's database wirelessly, out of thin >air. > >AirSnort's abilities aren't groundbreaking -- security experts know >all too well that wireless networks can be easily accessed and >monitored by outsiders. But a fully featured tool to facilitate >password-grabs wasn't readily available until this past weekend, when >AirSnort was released on the Internet. > >"AirSnort certainly ups the ante in the sense that with this tool, >your 'encrypted wireless net' can be quickly and easily breached," >said Randy Sandone of Argus, a security company. > >"Once AirSnort breaks the encryption, you're basically hosed. A >malicious hacker can read any packet traveling over the network, >gather information, passwords -- you name it." > >Wireless networks transmit information over public airwaves, the same >medium used by television, radio and cell phones. The networks are >supposed to be protected by a built-in security feature, the Wired >Equivalent Privacy system (WEP) -- also known as the 802.11b standard >-- which encrypts data as it is transmitted. > >But WEP/802.11b has proved to be quite crackable. And that's exactly >why AirSnort was publicly released, said AirSnort programmers Jeremy >Bruestle and Blake Hegerle. They hope that AirSnort will prove once >and for all that wireless networks protected only by WEP are not >secure. > >"Yes, AirSnort can be used as a cracking tool, but it can also be used >as a really big stick in an argument over the safety of WEP," Hegerle >said. > >"We felt that the only proper thing to do was to release the project," >Bruestle said. "It is not obvious to the layman or the average >administrator how vulnerable 802.11b is to attack. It's too easy to >trust WEP. Honestly, there is a lot of work involved in hardening a >wireless network. It's easy to be complacent. AirSnort is all about >opening people's eyes." > >Added Sandone: "Perhaps its release will prompt wireless vendors to >significantly enhance the encryption of their products. And hopefully >users will come to understand that encryption (regardless of how it is >used) is not a panacea." > >"Some people overhype the power of encryption, and others put too much >faith in its 'mathematical precision.' It clearly has its value, but >it shouldn't be the only security mechanism in use." > >"Weaknesses in the Key Scheduling Algorithm of RC4," a recently >published paper by Scott Fluhrer, Itsik Mantin and Adi Shamir, >outlined a way to learn the master key to the WEP encryption system, >which would allow an intruder to pose as a legitimate user of the >network. > >Adam Stubblefield, a Rice University undergraduate who was working as >a summer intern at AT&T Labs, tested that exploit (with the permission >of the network's administrator) and was able to pull up the network's >master password in just under two hours. > >Stubblefield published his research on the Internet, but did not >release the program he used to access AT&T's wireless network. > >If the software that he wrote to grab passwords were published, >Stubblefield told a reporter from The New York Times, anyone with a >basic knowledge of computers and a wireless network card could easily >crack many wireless networks. > >"Basically I read the paper and wondered if the attack would actually >work in the real world, and how hard it would be to implement," >Bruestle said. "I am the CEO of a small security firm, Cypher42, and I >wanted to know just how difficult or easy it would be to implement the >attack, so we could properly advise clients on 802.11b security." > >Another tool, WEPcrack, was released on the Internet around the same >time as AirSnort, but WEPcrack is still considered an alpha release, a >work in progress. > >Bruestle and Hegerle's AirSnort is a beta release, a designation that >indicates a program is not quite ready for primetime, but is further >along feature and stability-wise than alpha. > >Bruestle said he and Hegerle had a basic working version of AirSnort >after less than 24 hours of programming time. > >Bruestle said he has received many e-mails about AirSnort, some in >favor of the public release of the tool, others accusing him of adding >to the malicious hackers' arsenal. > >"Many of the people who have e-mailed me about AirSnort are sysadmins >who thanked me for giving them a way to convince management that WEP >really is insecure," Bruestle said. "Of course, I have gotten a number >of flame mails too, comparing the release of AirSnort to 'giving guns >to children.' I understand the viewpoint of those who believe >dangerous information should be hidden, but I disagree." > >Hegerle and Bruestle said that they believe that many people did not >understand the academic nature of Fluhrer, Mantin and Shamir's paper, >and may not understand how vulnerable wireless systems are. > >"It was beyond even my humble attempts to understand (the paper's) >full depths," Bruestle said. "The implications of a tool like AirSnort >are much harder to deny than the paper it was based on." > >AirSnort uses a completely passive attack: An AirSnort user needs only >a Linux-operated computer with a wireless network card, and access to >whatever wireless network he or she wishes to crack. > >Many wireless networks allow amazingly easy access to unauthorized >users, as some have discovered when their laptops suddenly connect to >the Internet when they are in or near a building that has a wireless >network. > >"I've been able to connect to networks when standing outside of >businesses, hospitals or Internet cafés that offer the service," said >Mark Denon, a freelance technology writer. > >"You can jump in and use the network to send e-mail or surf the Net, >and often it's quite possible to access whatever information is moving >across the network. It's very easy to piggyback onto many wireless >networks, and some people make a game of driving or walking around a >city and seeing how many networks they can jump into." > >"A wireless card in the machine that's running AirSnort does not send >out any data or actually talk with any of the other machines on the >network," said Hegerle. "It simply listens to all the other traffic, >so it doesn't matter if the network allows unauthorized access, as >none of the other machines on the network will even know anyone is >listening," said Hegerle. > >The amount of time required to piece together a password with AirSnort >depends on a number of factors, Bruestle said, but mostly depends on >the amount of network traffic and "luck." > >"On a highly saturated network, AirSnort can usually collect enough >packets to guess the key in three or four hours. If the network is >very low traffic, it can take days to get enough data," Bruestle >said. "Since the attack is based on probability, the actual number of >packets required to guess a given key varies from key to key, >sometimes significantly." > >AirSnort monitoring does not have to be all done in one session, >though. "Five hours one day and five the next works out to be about >the same as 10 hours in a row," Bruestle said. > >Systems administrators have mixed reactions over the release of >AirSnort. > >"Granted, this program will hammer the truth into people's heads about >the insecure nature of any wireless network protected only by WEP," >said Gerry Kaufman, a medical network and systems consultant. "But >releasing this tool also allows a lot of people access to networks who >couldn't have cracked them before. I'm really torn between advocating >open access to information, and keeping tools like AirSnort out of the >hands of kids with too much free time on their hands." > >Kaufman said the "only good thing" that could come from AirSnort's >release is its use for proving to "those who approve the expenditures" >that wireless networks need stronger protection. > >Hegerle and Bruestle suggest that wireless network users look into >other end-to-end forms of encryption, such as Virtual Private Networks >(VPNs) to protect data going over wireless networks. > >"While this requires more work, the false sense of security WEP offers >is worse than no security at all," Bruestle said. > >"Quite simply, I won't be happy until there are no people trusting >their data to WEP as it now exists," Hegerle said. "There are several >possible ways to change WEP, and I would like to see a new dialog >begin, one that looks for a replacement to the badly designed WEP we >are now stuck with." > >Under development are new versions of WEP/802.11b that will include >stronger security features. But the new standards won't be released >until mid-2002 at the earliest. > >-- >Robert J. Berger >UltraDevices, Inc. >257 Castro Street, Suite 223 Mt. View CA. 94041 >Voice: 408-882-4755 Fax: 408-490-2868 >Email: rberger at ultradevices.com http://www.ultradevices.com For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/ From FrogRemailer at lne.com Wed Aug 22 07:27:58 2001 From: FrogRemailer at lne.com (Frog2) Date: 22 Aug 2001 14:27:58 -0000 Subject: Raid 'em, raid 'em now. Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 10:45 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: > > > > >> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > > >>> spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret Squirrel > > >>> mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and > > >> Crawford, Texas.) > > >>> > > >>> ~Aimee > > > > > >> I know raccoons like my garbage and are creative > > >> about getting to it. Does that tell me something > > >> about Crawford, Texas? > > >> MacN > > > > > > Uhm, no. The SS is very pro. And that is THE DETAIL. (As for me, I > > > figure > > > somebody can read my communication attributes. On second thought... > > > *ponder* > > > I think a keystroke logger would be a good thing for me.) Realize the > > > cultural differences. A bunch of highly-educated, clean-cut professional > > > agents breaking into a female's house around here... it could be that > > > some > > > women around here don't want to issue warrants -- they want to issue > > > invitations. > > > > > > I have an interest in VIP privacy problems, so I'm appalled by the > > > circus > > > and fanfare. I imagine they wanted some solitude -- what little they can > > > steal. I had a cabin in CLOSE proximity, and I didn't gawk once. All I > > > know: > > > I now have take-out prime rib down the road. > > > > ???? > > > > I can't make sense of _any_ of this. Do you _ever_ write clearly? > > > > --Tim May > > It went through some redaction. It gives rise to a form of elliptical > conversation. > > ~Aimee JYA may be obscure but you're just loony. From bear at sonic.net Wed Aug 22 14:54:19 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Mac Norton wrote: >perhaps greater importance, in context. Faddish as it sometimes-- >well, hell, often--is, the academic side of the law is the >*only* side of the law that even begins to reward originality. >Those of us who actually represent people find that original >thinking is the bane of most judges, unless you can make them >believe the idea started with them. > >Any parallels in software, both as to faddishness among >the "original" thinkers and leader-following otherwise? At the first job I had out of college, we spent almost six months busily "updating the look" of an application that worked perfectly well, so that the sales guys could impress people not only with how well it worked, but also with how "slick" it was. So we did color fades on title bars, and added gray to our white scroll bars, and rearranged dialog boxes, and exchanged our athena widgets for motif widgets that worked exactly the same, and moved stuff from the regular menus to the right-mouse menu, and made our "drawn oval" buttons into rectangular buttons that were lighter on the upper and left edges and darker on the lower and right edges (which, laughably, was called "making them 3-d"), and converted the internal documentation from troff and TeX to HTML, and did about a jillion other tiny things that added nearly zero functionality but brought the old application up to the current idea of "style". A year after I left, I heard from someone who had stayed that they were reimplementing the interface as a "thin client" application, because thin clients had come into style. Note -- it had an XWINDOWS INTERFACE to start with!!! your "thin client" on an Xwindows interface is neither more nor less than a standard X server running on the machine where you want the interface to appear! At another company, a few months ago, a lead developer came to me announcing that they were developing a parser to convert an application langauge into an XML schema using a whizbang database that had somehow sprouted an XML interface, and they were having trouble with recursive structures in the formal schema description the database wanted. I said, "is there a reason we're not using lex? lex handles recursive structure just fine." The response, of course, is that nobody wants to tell customers we're using lex to generate our XML, because lex isn't in style.... but this whizbang database (and why does a *database* have XML-conversion functions??) is. I see a lot of engineering effort wasted on silly fads. Good people spending days and sometimes weeks reinventing wheels that represent problems that were solved decades ago, just because the solutions developed then, despite being proven and correct, are presently out of style. It's a waste of resources and it pisses me off. Bear From bear at sonic.net Wed Aug 22 15:30:27 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Gary Jeffers wrote: > If a scanner were written and widely deployed, then I think that >the problem of crushing Gnutella would be at least a magnitude harder. >Maybe the Gnutella support sites would promote and distribute such >a scanner? It is important to note that knowing where the doors are is as important to those who want to lock them as to those who want to open them. Bear From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 22 13:09:43 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:09:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: anonymous wrote: Faustine wrote: > So why is it that the vast majority of the technical and insightful > contributions here seem to come from people who aren't averse to > using a reasonable simulacrum of a real name and address? >I find the content from remailers is far higher than average for the >list. Fine, but "average" in this context isn't as useful as measuring the top n percent in terms of total value of information to any given participant. > I made the deliberate choice not to use a remailer because I think > it's more interesting to contribute while having a prior body of > posts "attached" to me. People come to know more what to expect--and > if I irritate/bore/piss them off too much, they stop reading > me. Which is exactly as it should be. >>So sign your messages. With your true name, if that's important. I wonder why you seem to have missed my point about services like Hushmail and Cotse. > Though if you're after complete privacy re: your opinions and the > details of your life, you're better off not writing them down in the > first place, here or anywhere else. >>The technology isn't there yet, true, but it won't get there without >>deploying it and using it. Why isn't this obvious? Even if the technology were 100% reliable, it's a matter of common sense. No amount of technology will ever keep you from trusting the wrong person, writing down something you should have kept in your head, or blabbing when you should have kept your mouth shut. In an absolute sense, "complete privacy" is only possible with an absence of communication signifiers. Developing privacy-enhancing technology, on the other hand, is absolutely crucial. But as I agree with what Bruce Schneier said about there being no such thing as "absolute security", I think it's always going to be a matter of what's "private enough" for any given situation. How "high stakes" you find posting to a mailing list depends on your particulars. And for me, Hushmail and Cotse are fine. If somebody is hell bent on fucking me over--here or elsewhere--the best remailer in the world won't help if they have the requisite knowledge, time, and resources. And I never said there was anything wrong with using a remailer. It's just that in the context of participating in a list, I think people tend to act worse since they have no real (or even symbolic) attachment to anything they say. I used to use a remailer to post to another list every single day for months. But I enjoy it more being a little more connected to it the way I participate here, that's all. > I assume everyone here weighed those considerations for themselves > before they got here: as far as I'm concerned, nobody has the > slightest business deciding it for anyone else. >Don't worry, the cypherpunks list isn't going anywhere. It's just not >realistic to put that genie back in the bottle. It would have to be a >separate list entirely or one which rode on the current cypherpunks >list. If your goal is to get rid of the technically incompetent and improve the quality of the list's content, you have to weigh the possibility of the bullshitting troll quotient going way, way up as well. And anyway, I think you're overestimating the skill level needed to use one: sure, the absolute cretins will have to go, but it remains to be seen how much moronic juvenalia will still be left over. Unfortunately, being intelligent and being immature are not mutually exclusive. >We may not be able to decide for others, but we can certainly look >down on so-called cypherpunks who, in many cases, cannot even encrypt >a message, never mind "writing code". So are you basing your assessment of who to look down on solely on whether or not they use PGP and remailers here, or are you going by the total informative content(or lack thereof)in their posts? Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to assume I know what anyone around here can or can't do. > Many, in fact, exhibit >hostility towards remailers and anonymity, as you do. That is a gross misreading of what I said. In the context of addressing "what makes participating in a list worthwhile", I just don't believe dictating from on high "everyone must use a remailer" is going to fix all the problems you think it will. And it'll probably create a lot more new ones. But I could be wrong, it'll be interesting to see how it turns out if you actually get one going. >What I fail to understand is why such people are on this list in the >first place, but, as you say, people make their own decisions. >(None of these comments apply to Tim May, of course.) Interesting how you know full well when you really need to make an exception to your too-broad generalization about people who use their real names on the list. ~Faustine. From sandfort at mindspring.com Wed Aug 22 16:23:47 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:23:47 -0700 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Faustine wrote: > Have you happened to have seen any good > papers on constructing do-it-yourself cheap, > effective, portable shielding? Here's a company that sells tempest shielded "tents": http://www.bemashield.com/seseries.html This a site that has all sorts of tempest links: http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/tempestsource.html With a bit more searching, you can find a company that manufactures the material used in the tents (I'd try 3M). Then, if you're handy with a sewing machine and can find the appropriate Simplicity pattern, you're in business. S a n d y From dbob at semtex.com Wed Aug 22 16:39:21 2001 From: dbob at semtex.com (Dynamite Bob) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:39:21 -0700 Subject: The secret knock, the red carnation (Re: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers.) Message-ID: <3B8442A9.797F7C6B@semtex.com> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Gary Jeffers wrote: > If a scanner were written and widely deployed, then I think that >the problem of crushing Gnutella would be at least a magnitude harder. >Maybe the Gnutella support sites would promote and distribute such >a scanner? You can always use the following method: Participating Nodes listen on random (UDP, say) ports for "I'm here" and "Gimme a pointer" queries. When booting your Node, it randomly sends "Gimme a pointer" messages to random IP addresses/ports until a helpful Participating Node is found, who shares the indexing info he has. Or if you are worried about exposure when a Fed/RIAA/MPAA box receives such a query from your machine: Nodes could instead listen for contacts on an 'uninteresting' port like TCP/80, and disguise queries as innocent looking requests. (You'll note resemblances to Code Red IIS-exploits...) Note also similarities to how spooks arrange to meet in public places... with a deniable nonsuspicious introduction From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 22 13:51:09 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:51:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money Message-ID: dmolnar wrote: >Perhaps in evaluating potential programs, it would be helpful to list >people in the policy + technology area who are worth looking into. Along >perhaps with which institutions they studied at? I'll start. I regret that >I'm not familiar with this area, and so I'm sure I'll overlook many >interesting people. Great start! If anyone is interested, maybe this weekend I could put together a list of the top policy analysis schools with their technology & policy faculty and backgrounds: I'm sure there are plenty of researchers with a lower profile than those on your list who might be a great match for potential students out there. All you really need is to find a few key people to mentor you whom you can really learn from and relate to, to make it worthwhile. >I'm also not sure what to do about people with some >policy interests who are primarily cryptographers -- do we include Ron >Rivest because of his work on electronic voting? Sure, anyone you think might be interesting to work with and learn from. >By the way, what exactly do you *do* after you graduate from a technology >and policy program? You can find all sorts of thing to do at universities, think tanks, NGOs, lobbying groups, etc. doing applied work, abstract work, or a combination of both. I'm sure where you end up depends a lot on your focus area and skill set. >Every now and then I wonder if I will eventually end up in law school or a >policy + technology program. The thought is alternately exciting and >saddening. Then again, so is the prospect of being a "pure" researcher. Since it's multidisciplinary from the start, if you take the analysis road, you have a much better chance of "building in" some flexibility and doing as much "pure research" as you want to in the long run. Take law, you're just stuck with doing law. But of course I'm 100% biased, so any any encouragement in this direction should be judged accordingly! :) Good luck... ~Faustine. From info at movieflix.com Wed Aug 22 17:03:30 2001 From: info at movieflix.com (MovieFlix.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:03:30 -0700 Subject: Your MovieFlix Registration Info Message-ID: <200108230003.RAA18754@melrose.movieflix.com> Thank you for registering at MovieFlix.com!!! The number one site for fun, FREE movies, trivia and MORE!!! Here is your registration ID and Password: ID : cypherpunks at toad.com Password : cypherpunks On your next visit to MovieFlix.com, you will automatically be logged on. Make sure you have cookies turned on - for help, visit http://www.movieflix.com/cookies.mfx If you have deleted your cookies, you will need to log in. To log in to MovieFlix.com, please visit: http://www.movieflix.com/login.mfx If you have any other technical support questions, please visit: http://www.movieflix.com/help.mfx Don't forget to come back for exciting new movies and features added daily. Have fun and enjoy the show. MovieFlix.com info at MovieFlix.com webmaster at MovieFlix.com http://www.MovieFlix.com/ From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 22 15:10:56 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:10:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010816172636.020bc8d0@brillig.panix.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote: > You have to be wired a little funny to think that a free society would > suffer the murder rate of those slave societies with their organized > mechanisms of extinction. You of course must accept that a 'C-A-C-L' society is a 'free' society. I have yet to see that demonstrated. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 22 15:13:00 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:13:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 22 Aug 2001 11:37:39 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" To: cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH What I find really neat here is that up until now, serious traffic analysis has been fairly neglected in the open crypto community. Is this the start of things to come? ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:53:30 -0600 From: aleph1 at securityfocus.com To: secpapers at securityfocus.com Cc: secureshell at securityfocus.com Subject: Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH Message-ID: <20010822085330.J3366 at securityfocus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH Dawn Xiaodong Song, David Wagner, Xuqing Tian University of California, Berkeley SSH is designed to provide a security channel between two hosts. Despite the encryption and authentication mechanisms it uses, SSH has two weakness: First, the transmitted packets are padded only to an eight-byte boundary (if a block cipher is in use), which reveals the approximate size of the original data. Second, in interactive mode, every individual keystroke that a user types is sent to the remote machine in a separate IP packet immediately after the key is pressed, which leaks the interkeystroke timing information of users' typing. In this paper, we show how these seemingly minor weaknesses result in serious security risks. First we show that even very simply statistical techniques suffice to reveal sensitive information such as the length of users' passwords or even root passwords. More importantly, we further show that using more advanced statistical techniques on timing information collected from the network, the eavesdropped can learn significant information about what users type in SSH sessions. In particular, we perform a statistical study of users' typing patterns and show that these patterns reveal information about the keys typed. By developing a Hidden Markov Model and our key sequence prediction algorithm, we can predict key sequences from the interkeystroke timings. We further develop and attacker system, Herbivore, which tried to learn users' passwords by monitoring SSH sessions. By collecting timing information on the network, Herbivore can speed up exhaustive search for passwords by a factor of 50. We also propose some countermeasures. In general our results apply not only to SSH, but also to general class of protocols for encrypting interactive traffic. We show that timing leaks open a new set of security risks, and hence caution must be taken when designing this type of protocol. http://paris.cs.berkeley.edu/~dawnsong/papers/ssh-timing.pdf - Elias Levy SecurityFocus http://www.securityfocus.com/ Si vis pacem, para bellum --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: secureshell-unsubscribe at securityfocus.com For additional commands, e-mail: secureshell-help at securityfocus.com ------- End of forwarded message ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From casey at computingbydesign.com Wed Aug 22 17:34:57 2001 From: casey at computingbydesign.com (casey at computingbydesign.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:34:57 -0700 Subject: LAS VEGAS DOES IT AGAIN " HOT LIVE CONTENT" Message-ID: <200108230034.RAA27710@ecotone.toad.com> Webmaster The Webmaster signup page: http://www.lasvegasmembers.com/feedorder/vegasorder2.html Here is the url to take a look at the Live feeds The Site http://www.lasvegasmembers.com Would like to introduce you to the newest, and most user friendly Live video site around. we are offering Webmasters Free live feeds for there pay sites, plus a 15% upsell on all sells made through you members that you send us, this is not a one time sells, your customers that come from your pay site will remain YOUR customer for ever, once he buys, he is locked in as your customer and will remain your customer. If you have any questions, please contact me 1 (702) 696 0602. We are working to be the largest Live video with interactive chat producer on the net I do believe with the team we have we will succeed. Please take the time and look at the Las Vegas Members, and matrixcams.com and let me know. I really think we can start off Great! As you know it only takes about five minutes to set all your referring urls up with the feeds. By linking to Las Vegas Members, your members will receive the three live feeds, and the matrixcams live video feeds, you will receive 15% of ! al! ! l upsells along with real time stats. Please consider doing business, and we will have a long business relationship. (702)696-0602 (702)461-2411 Casey Lamasters Computing By Design casey at computingbydesign.com From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Aug 22 08:45:15 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:45:15 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH (fwd) Message-ID: -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 22 Aug 2001 11:37:39 -0400 From: Perry E. Metzger To: cryptography at wasabisystems.com Subject: Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH What I find really neat here is that up until now, serious traffic analysis has been fairly neglected in the open crypto community. Is this the start of things to come? ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:53:30 -0600 From: aleph1 at securityfocus.com To: secpapers at securityfocus.com Cc: secureshell at securityfocus.com Subject: Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH Message-ID: <20010822085330.J3366 at securityfocus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Timing Analysis of Keystrokes and Timing Attacks on SSH Dawn Xiaodong Song, David Wagner, Xuqing Tian University of California, Berkeley SSH is designed to provide a security channel between two hosts. Despite the encryption and authentication mechanisms it uses, SSH has two weakness: First, the transmitted packets are padded only to an eight-byte boundary (if a block cipher is in use), which reveals the approximate size of the original data. Second, in interactive mode, every individual keystroke that a user types is sent to the remote machine in a separate IP packet immediately after the key is pressed, which leaks the interkeystroke timing information of users' typing. In this paper, we show how these seemingly minor weaknesses result in serious security risks. First we show that even very simply statistical techniques suffice to reveal sensitive information such as the length of users' passwords or even root passwords. More importantly, we further show that using more advanced statistical techniques on timing information collected from the network, the eavesdropped can learn significant information about what users type in SSH sessions. In particular, we perform a statistical study of users' typing patterns and show that these patterns reveal information about the keys typed. By developing a Hidden Markov Model and our key sequence prediction algorithm, we can predict key sequences from the interkeystroke timings. We further develop and attacker system, Herbivore, which tried to learn users' passwords by monitoring SSH sessions. By collecting timing information on the network, Herbivore can speed up exhaustive search for passwords by a factor of 50. We also propose some countermeasures. In general our results apply not only to SSH, but also to general class of protocols for encrypting interactive traffic. We show that timing leaks open a new set of security risks, and hence caution must be taken when designing this type of protocol. http://paris.cs.berkeley.edu/~dawnsong/papers/ssh-timing.pdf - Elias Levy SecurityFocus http://www.securityfocus.com/ Si vis pacem, para bellum --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: secureshell-unsubscribe at securityfocus.com For additional commands, e-mail: secureshell-help at securityfocus.com ------- End of forwarded message ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 22 18:00:51 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:00:51 -0700 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108222128.RAA28905@waste.minder.net> References: <200108211909.f7LJ9Mf19487@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010822175212.0305bd80@idiom.com> At 10:30 PM 08/22/2001 +0100, r.duke at freedom.net wrote: >You mean it wasn't like in "The Firm" where all the firms chase after you, >offering you wads of cash? That's a bit disappointing. The movie ending was an annoying wimpout compared to the book, but there were some scenes that they did well, particularly the one where Hackman and the other lawyers are telling Cruz the importance of "Billing". Directly applicable in parts of the computer consulting biz.... From dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu Wed Aug 22 15:07:32 2001 From: dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu (dmolnar) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108222128.RAA28905@waste.minder.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 r.duke at freedom.net wrote: > the Internet & law? There are a few such groups, I think. I'm pretty sure > Harvard has > one. Do things like that only make a difference if you manage to publish The Berkman Center for Internet and Society. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ The name always takes me aback, because I automatically think "Alexander Berkman" whenever I read it. They run online courses, which sometimes accept Internet participants. See http://eon.law.harvard.edu/trust/ for one such course on defining "trust." They also have a newsletter, "The Filter," which is sometimes interesting. This year they started running a 5-day "Internet Law Program of Instruction," if you happen to have a spare $2500. (Tangentially, who attends MIT's 6.87s? and what do they do with it afterwards? I've received solicitations to attend via mail for the past couple of years; I suspect because I am an ACM SIGSAC member. http://web.mit.edu/professional/summer/courses/computer/6.87s.html If *anyone* could get the material across in 4 days, it would be those two -- but I'm not sure that this is possible...) > >yourself in a foursome for 30 minutes then get up when you hear the next knock > >and prepare to turn your next trick 30 minutes later. Lather, rinse, repeat. > > You mean it wasn't like in "The Firm" where all the firms chase after you, > offering you > wads of cash? That's a bit disappointing. Maybe if you're a top student who's clerked for Supreme Court justices. I expect the reality for middle-of-the-road students is different. Richard Kahlenberg wrote a book called _Broken Contract: A Memoir of Harvard Law School_. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1558492348/104-7768652-1425537 Part of it describes his interviewing process at the end of law school. Now, he has an axe to grind (and he's upfront about this, so much so that at times it's distracting) - he believes that Harvard Law, as an institution (should I put scare quotes around that?), pushes its graduates away from the public sector. So take it with a grain of salt. What he describes is a system in which middle-level students are so thoroughly crushed and insecure by the time they've finished comparing grades, who made it to Law Review, and which offers they have, that they'll jump for the first job that makes them feel important again. It's a disturbing read. -David From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 22 18:07:54 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:07:54 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010822180229.03058ec0@idiom.com> At 02:54 PM 08/22/2001 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >(and why does a *database* have XML-conversion functions??) XML's a decent match with tuples, and providing an easily standardized and malleable data interchange format is not only an easy thing to bolt on but a potentially big win for usability, as well as providing the lastest buzzword compliance. Of course, just because you *can* use it to make things cleaner instead of uglier and more complex doesn't mean you have to. >I see a lot of engineering effort wasted on silly fads. Good >people spending days and sometimes weeks reinventing wheels >that represent problems that were solved decades ago, just >because the solutions developed then, despite being proven >and correct, are presently out of style. It's a waste of >resources and it pisses me off. Lots of the recent user interface trends are a waste of, umm, skins. A certain 3.5-letter-acronym company or its suppliers recently put lots of effort into enhancing its secure VPN dialer product, and I *wish* they'd focused on testing the Mac product instead of doing customizable look&feel for the Windoze versions... From mmotyka at lsil.com Wed Aug 22 18:16:08 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:16:08 -0700 Subject: Double standard? Message-ID: <3B845958.A96F471D@lsil.com> I'm sure everyone has seen this. http://cryptome.org/jones-v-cat.htm And I know how I dislike raw links so I won't do it. The Honorable Edith Jones has a VERY healthy attitude towards electronic snooping. IMHO she's outraged. Is the Washington-mandated snooping part of a power play where the behavior of the judiciary needs to be monitored and controlled in real-time or is it incidental to the stated goals of cleaning up office computer usage? Now I wonder how Judge Jones feels about snooping on the population in general? Is she a standout among judges or do those in power feel outrage only when the abuse is close to home? Do those in power want to create the virtual version of gated communities and limit the membership or all entitled to the same rights? Mike From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 22 18:16:36 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:16:36 -0700 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010822180921.0305eb40@idiom.com> At 07:07 PM 08/22/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: >Have you happened to have seen any good papers on constructing do-it- >yourself cheap, effective, portable shielding? Probably might as well ask >for the moon too while I'm at it, but it's worth a shot! Back when I was playing with that technology, there was no such thing as "cheap, effective, portable" :-) The three main applications for shielding were - FCC-grade quietness - so your neighbors don't complain about TV interference, but that's not enough to stop eavesdroppers - TEMPEST-certified equipment, which not only needs the technical capabilities correct but also the testing and paperwork, which tended to add ~$5000 per PC. - ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC) testing, which uses big shielded rooms to make quiet environments for testing hardware in. The technology's pretty similar to TEMPEST-room shielding, except that you put the noisy stuff outside instead of inside, but it's the big expensive non-portable end of the product spectrum. From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 22 18:49:39 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:49:39 -0700 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: References: <200108152336.f7FNamC13182@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010822183112.03060850@idiom.com> >On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > > Many of us don't believe this common belief today, that the First is > > mainly about political speech, is consistent with the intent of the > Framers. If you're talking about tobacco advertising or dirty pictures on the Net, politicians will tell you "Oh, No, the Freedom-of-speech-and-press stuff in the First Amendment isn't about that, it's about protecting political speech." But if you're talking about campaign finance, "well, no, elections are too important to let people with money pay to have their opinions published, that would corrupt the election process." We've got a current case in California, reported in the 8/21 SF Chronicle, where Gov. Gray Davis is asking a judge to block psuedonymous TV ads criticizing his atrocious mishandling of the electricity crisis. This is pure political speech, not even mentioning elections or opposing politicians, just slamming the "Gray-outs from Gray Davis". According to the article by Ray Delgado, Davis's campaign committee sued, complaining that the American Taxpayers Alliance, based in DC, broke California law by not registering with the CA secretary of state as a political organization and not disclosing the identities of its donors. They spent about $2M, and it's headed by Scott Reed, a Republican campaign consultant, and registed with the IRS as a non-profit corporation. Delgado says that Time Magazine identified Reliant Energy as a big contributor, and the Center for Responsive Politics says their prime donors are oil&gas companies (big surprise there, eh?) The Alliance's lawyer, James Bopp, says that this ad is an assessment of the gov's performance in office, and protected by the First. Davis's mouthpiece is Joseph Remcho, and the Judge is San Francisco Superior Court Judge David Garcia. (Of course, I'd be extremely surprised if the ad also criticizes Davis's predecessor, Republican Party Reptile Pete Wilson, whose economic cluelessness got us into this mess, leaving behind a system that would take *far* more economic competence than any major Democrat can be expect to have to repair it.) From ashwood at msn.com Wed Aug 22 17:05:19 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:05:19 -0500 Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. References: Message-ID: <010601c12b68$e06086a0$f6c2b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Jeffers" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:43 PM Subject: CDR: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. > My fellow Cypherpunks, > > It has been stated that Gnutella is completely decentralized. This is > not so. In order to get started with a Gnutella search, you need to use > a Gnutella search provider to find Gnutella groups. > > Would it be possible to write some kind of scanner that would look > at an ISP, say for example, htc.net and display all the Gnutella users > there? We seem to be over the "fax effect" (a Snelling point?) > magnitude where automated hunting for Gnutella users would be practical. > Also, maybe the scanner could search thru various ISP's as well as > particular ones. If it did close ISPs 1st, then it could help with the > efficency of file searches. > > Also, note that Gnutella deals in files - ANY kind of files. I > suppose that most? Cypherpunks know that - but just to be sure. > > If a scanner were written and widely deployed, then I think that > the problem of crushing Gnutella would be at least a magnitude harder. > Maybe the Gnutella support sites would promote and distribute such > a scanner? > > Yours Truly, > Gary Jeffers From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 22 16:07:42 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition Message-ID: Bill Stewart wrote: At 03:31 PM 08/20/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: >Eugene wrote: > > > and switching to an emission poor system (chucking CRT for LCD > > would do plenty for starters) > >Actually, that won't help you much: emissions from LCD screens can be >easier to decode than those from monitors. Active matrix LCD screens create >very strong and clear emissions--as long as a display uses some form of >pixel sweep where each pixel is activated at a unique time, then the >emissions are simple to decode. Though in theory LCD screens emit less than >a VDU, recent EMC controls have greatly reduced emanations from VDUs--with >the result that the graphics card will often be the greatest source of >compromise. >Also, most laptops have a VGA connector on the back, which leaks heavily. >An external VGA screen might be a bit quieter, because the cables can be >shielded, but it still depends on how capable the attacker is. >And basically, if the Feds are sitting outside your house listening >to whatever they can from your computer, you've already blown your >security :-)Shoulda used Blacknet. Have you happened to have seen any good papers on constructing do-it- yourself cheap, effective, portable shielding? Probably might as well ask for the moon too while I'm at it, but it's worth a shot! ~Faustine. From ravage at ssz.com Wed Aug 22 17:08:14 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:08:14 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Phil Zimmermann Talk Summary And Audio Message-ID: <3B84496E.88B4E63A@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/22/1845245.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 22 19:09:19 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:09:19 -0700 Subject: Voice crypto: In-Reply-To: <200108071533.f77FXE524060@slack.lne.com> References: <20010807081912.25959.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010822185042.0305b7c0@idiom.com> Tim, Dr. Evil, and others were talking about Starium and other secure voice. > >> I bought one, and I know of several others who have bought them. > >> As to whether they are _currently_ selling any models, I can't say. > >> But this doesn't change my "fax effect" point. The Voice Over IP market has been growing rapidly, with wiretappability built in, and the Fax Effect making it more likely that if you're on a VOIP call over the Internet or telcos it's insecure. The primary standard in use is H.323, which doesn't do crypto and which picks its TCP ports in ways that are hard to simply force through IPSEC unless you're doing that for all your traffic. Some of the followon standards may help, and there are other VOIP systems out there (mostly proprietary), but H.323 is dominant. SIP and MGCP are more wrappers around H.323 than competitors. Other than random hobbyists or software developers, most of the VOIP market is in several categories - Microsoft Netmeeting users on the Internet (it's free, and comes with almost every $50 PC camera.) - PBX replacements running on companies' private networks, behind firewalls and usually not carried on the Internet. They're pretty safe; corporate nets can be hacked, at least by insiders, but so can PBXs. - International carriers providing gateways between US and non-US telcos, generally with the Internet in the middle but sometimes with their own private IP nets in the middle. These are tappable at the US telco edge, but for internet-based services, the Internet's probably an easier place. - US companies like Net2Phone that provide cheap connectivity from PC users to telcos, and similar businesses being proposed but DSL and cable modem providers. These have the problem that CALEA wiretap requirements apply to any telco-like provider, and any non-telco ISP or VOIPgate can be tapped at the telco edge. I've been trying to set up voice communications on Linux that I can try over IPSEC in my lab, using www.openh323.org, to see how it sounds and what issues come up while using it. So far, I've confirmed Hugh Daniel's comments that sound card support on Linux is dodgy, unreliable, and a real pain. Once I've got stable operating systems again that don't complain about missing sound-chip driver modules, I'll probably just run Windows (sigh) Netmeeting across the freeswan and also across the Nortel Contivity stuff we're installing. From si_said1 at caramail.com Wed Aug 22 19:09:47 2001 From: si_said1 at caramail.com (Sad ABID) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:09:47 GMT+1 Subject: comp128 Message-ID: <998500187004873@caramail.com> hi, me too, i'm searching executable of comp128, so plz if you have it, send it to me. Thank you a lot ______________________________________________________ Boîte aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com From 1support at microsoft.com Wed Aug 22 20:10:14 2001 From: 1support at microsoft.com (1support at microsoft.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:10:14 Subject: Information You Requested from Microsoft.com Message-ID: NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT MONITORED. Welcome to Microsoft Online ID secure Internet environment! Below is your membership information. Please keep this confirmation mail as a record of your password. Consider this information confidential and treat accordingly. Your Microsoft Online ID Password is: cypherpunks A Microsoft Online ID provides access to various Microsoft secured programs. Please check the Frequently Asked Questions and/or Help page of the program you are accessing for questions. Sincerely, Microsoft Online ID Administrator From 1support at microsoft.com Wed Aug 22 20:10:27 2001 From: 1support at microsoft.com (1support at microsoft.com) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:10:27 Subject: Information You Requested from Microsoft.com Message-ID: NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT MONITORED. Welcome to Microsoft Online ID secure Internet environment! Below is your membership information. Please keep this confirmation mail as a record of your password. Consider this information confidential and treat accordingly. Your Microsoft Online ID Password is: cypherpunks A Microsoft Online ID provides access to various Microsoft secured programs. Please check the Frequently Asked Questions and/or Help page of the program you are accessing for questions. Sincerely, Microsoft Online ID Administrator From morlockelloi at yahoo.com Wed Aug 22 21:38:03 2001 From: morlockelloi at yahoo.com (Morlock Elloi) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. In-Reply-To: <010601c12b68$e06086a0$f6c2b6c7@josephas> Message-ID: <20010823043804.8608.qmail@web13207.mail.yahoo.com> > on this very coarse analysis I think it would be in our own interest to keep > the usage of such scanning tools to a minimum, perhaps having just a few > central servers that serve up lists of Gnutella hosts. *A few* central servers always lead to the same result: control and strangulation - it doesn't really matter if DNS is centralised (which is the mechanism for "web" censorship) or any other addressing method. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From r.duke at freedom.net Wed Aug 22 14:30:51 2001 From: r.duke at freedom.net (r.duke at freedom.net) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:30:51 +0100 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money References: <200108211909.f7LJ9Mf19487@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <200108222128.RAA28905@waste.minder.net> At 23:31 21/08/2001 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim May" > > The question is this: is it a good idea for list members to go to law > > school? Issues of accredited vs. unaccredited, reputable vs. > > correspondence vs. diploma mills, etc. > >Unless you really love the law, really love spending hours and hours in dusty >libraries looking at old books and enjoy the smell of moldy paper, don't >bother. (Another Internet centred lawyer wannabe speaks up.) But is it worth it if you do? I like musty books. And I'm sufficiently antisocial to find libraries quite pleasant. I suppose the problem is that like many on this list (and in life in general), I'm not exactly fascinated by some parts of the law that lawyers would realistically spend their time working on, such as wills. Hold me back - I just can't stop reading them - if only I could write them. >Do not go to law school suffering from the delusion that you are going to come >out, join a big money firm and change the world by quashing the DMCA. Perhaps >you will, but the partners are hiring their little associates for one reason, >to pay for those cherry wood offices and the but the odds are awfully slim you >will be working on the DMCA. There are so many lawyers out there right now >you might find yourself stuck without much in the way of prospects. >Professional basketball is a decent alternative. What about those who manage to get into a group specializing in something like the Internet & law? There are a few such groups, I think. I'm pretty sure Harvard has one. Do things like that only make a difference if you manage to publish papers while studying? (Something which, given the workload, is probably all but impossible.) >I've never felt more like a prostitute than I did when interviewing for large >corporate firms out of law school. They send three or four senior associates >to the city they are visiting, rent a hotel room in the Marriott and put a >chair outside the door. You show up five minutes early, sit in the chair in >the hall, looking at the other candidate interviewing with another firm >sitting at the other end of the hall in a chair, and knock when your appointed >time has arrived. The last hooker who was in there leaves and you go in, sell >yourself in a foursome for 30 minutes then get up when you hear the next knock >and prepare to turn your next trick 30 minutes later. Lather, rinse, repeat. You mean it wasn't like in "The Firm" where all the firms chase after you, offering you wads of cash? That's a bit disappointing. > > What I'm saying is that a few lawyers will end up in interesting areas. > >Yep. Hmm. I guess I'll continue with the question from above - if you make a point in specializing in something like International law and jurisdiction (while possibly being active in a specialized group like the Harvard Internet Law group, or a similar group in a school that would actually accept me), and have a good technical background to back it up, what are your chances of doing something interesting? Any call for criminal lawyers who actually understand how hacks and cracks work? I was thinking about law because it interests me, and because I really just sort of fell into programming and security as a result of not knowing what else to do. I never meant for it to become some sort of "career." >Lehigh ranked high for parties ** University nudges up to No. 15 among "Party >Schools. ' It's 3rd best place to find beer, 9th best for pot. Screw 9th - who was first? ++rd ________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net From angelina313 at prontomail.com Wed Aug 22 19:46:57 2001 From: angelina313 at prontomail.com ($14,874.27 per month) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:46:57 -0400 Subject: How To Make $14,874.27 per month QUICKLY on the Net...with NO $$$Money! ? ? Message-ID: <200108230244.f7N2ij510014@etc.broadwing.net> This is NEW and INCREDIBLY EXCITING!! 100% Fail-Proof! It is like NOTHING you have ever seen on the net today! You can join for FREE and MAKE MONEY!! Learn the secrets. Once your earnings START, they NEVER STOP! Multiple bonuses. Check out this EXCITING OPPORTUNITY. No money required. Just click this link and I'll e-mail you free details. mailto:info_31 at usa.com?subject=JoinFREE (DO NOT HIT REPLY) or info_31 at usa.com and type "JoinFree" in subject line. (You MUST put "JoinFree" in subject line). --->(DO NOT HIT REPLY UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE REMOVED)<--- Hope you don't miss this one. Guaranteed to work fast. ============================================= ((( Do *Not* Hit Reply ))) -- --->Removal Instructions Below<--- ---------------------------------------------- *********(REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS BELOW)********** ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- If you wish to be removed from future mailings, then you can hit "reply" with the subject "Remove" and you will automatically be blocked from any future mailings. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 22 23:00:45 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:00:45 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010808122935.008e2930@pop.sprynet.com> References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010822224029.02f5c4d0@idiom.com> [The remailer-bandwidth sub-thread...] > >>> Were that to happen, I'd bet a bunch of new remailers would be > >>> in place before the heliocopters were finished refueling. > >> > >>Obviously you don't run one: the resources required are _not_ trivial, at > >>least from the bandwidth perspective. > >Its not the bandwidth, its the learning time, for the human who has >to choose the code to install, install it, configure it, and test it. >Attention is the limited resource. Attention *is* the limited resource; if it can be turned into script-kiddie-fodder it's ostensibly possible to get lots more. The big wins with Zero Knowledge were supposed to be two things - professionalizing the software so it's easy to install, and a business model that encourages ISPs to keep it around so you're not constantly worrying about getting kicked off your ISP, which leads to much of the monitoring that requires ongoing attention. Doesn't look like they won, but I'm glad they tried. Julf's original remailer ran on a 486 fed by a 64kbps private line. Modern remailers may get enough more traffic than that, but I doubt it - that's 691MB/day if you're not worried about really fast response time. I think most of the current remailers get a few thousand messages/day, probably averaging less than 10KB/message, so there's plenty of Headroom. Encryption burns a lot of CPU, but CPU's pretty near free these days. If the system gets used for Napster-like services, however, that involves lots more traffic. Cable modems don't gain you much - there's great downstream speed, so the remailer doesn't interfere with your other usage much and you can absorb bursts of traffic, but the upstream is usually limited to 128kbps in most of the US - only double the capacity of Julf's. Also, most cable-modem carriers have highly short-sighted views of what activities they want to allow and how many complaints they'll tolerate, so you could get the boot pretty fast if you're not a middleman or in-only. Petro's example of a colo site with dual gigabit feeds is more interesting, though that's highly unlikely to be full-time access for Gig-E per host, and most host computers can't keep up with that kind of load anyway. Still, the last estimate I heard for Usenet (probably 2-3 years old) was that the non-binaries used about 1 T1 full-time and the binaries used 2 more, so that's a total of ~5Mbps of drivel delivered right to your doorstep; remailers definitely should be smaller than that Until It Changes. Somebody said that remailers are pretty far down on the list of people who the government wants to Squash. True, but it wouldn't be hard to get most of them shut down quickly if they did want to, either directly in the US and cooperating countries, or through online cracker attacks elsewhere (particularly by harassing the ISPs of the remailer operators, who may not fold to overseas political pressure but don't like being attacked.) From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 22 23:08:50 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:08:50 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messa ges. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010822230057.0306bc60@idiom.com> At 10:30 AM 08/13/2001 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: >I'm aware of exactly two datapoints - Skipjack (which wasn't good enough >that anyone wanted to use it), and the recent 'dual counter mode' snafu. >That's not enough to draw broad conclusions. Dual Counter was a serious crypto product that was broken and failed. But Skipjack was apparently strong enough, within the limits of 80-bit keys, and while the academic whitewash team didn't have time for more than a cursory examination, that wasn't the real problem with the system. After all, it came with a guaranteed wiretap capability, was a clear political scam, and rapidly acquired public hatred and ridicule, plus the only advantage it had was being stronger than 1-DES, which was in practice strong enough for almost all non-money-transfer apps. The whole system reeked badly, but the Skipjack part was the strongest link. From domainsdirect at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 00:20:54 2001 From: domainsdirect at yahoo.com (domainsdirect at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:20:54 Subject: Get .Sex Domains Today! Message-ID: <200108222332.QAA01998@toad.com> The latest domain name extension has arrived .SEX!!! It's the fresh ,new, exciting web address that is taking the world by storm. Who wants to be .com when you can now be .SEX Register your .SEX domain name today exclusively at: http://www.dotsex.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be taken off the mailing list please click below: http://www.dotsex.com/unsubscribe.phtml From contact at gogoo.com Thu Aug 23 01:48:19 2001 From: contact at gogoo.com (contact at gogoo.com) Date: Do, 23 Aug 2001 01:48:19 Subject: Need Contact? 230 Mio Prospects just $90 !!! Message-ID: <151.815095.366060@mail.gugoo.com> 230 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR ONLY $ 90 You want to make some money? I can put you in touch with over 230 million people at virtually no cost. That's right, I have over 200 Million Fresh email addresses that I will sell for only $ 90. 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% response. That's OVER $10,000,000 IN YOUR POCKET !!! These 230 Million email addresses are yours to keep, so you can use them over and over. They come on a collection of several CDs. This offer is not for everyone. If you can not see the just how excellent the risk / reward ratio in this offer is then there is nothing I can do for you. To make money you must stop dreaming and TAKE ACTION. TWO PACKAGES: Simple: (addresses and Reports ONLY) Extended: (mailing software included) PACKAGE DESCRIPTIONS BELOW; **************************************** THE SIMPLE MARKETING SETUP (addresses and ReportsONLY) 230,000,000 email addresses on CD Reports, Helpfiles etc. These name are all in text files ready to mail!!! CHF 150.00, (~$90.00) ORDER METHOD - SEE BELOW **************************************** THE EXTENDED MARKETING SETUP 230,000,000 email addresses on CD Reports, Help-Files etc. These name are all in text files ready to mail!!! AND Several different email programs and tools to help with your mailings and list management. CHF 200.00 (~$ 120.00) ORDER METHOD - SEE BELOW IF YOU ORDER BY MAIL OR FAX WE WILL SHIP YOUR CD CONTAINING THE 230 MILLION NAMES WITHIN 24 HOURS OF YOUR ORDER!!! WE ACCEPT: AMERCAN-EXPRESS, VISA & MASTERCARD TYPE OF CARD AE/VISA / MC??_______________ EXPIRATION DATE ___________________________ NAME ON CREDIT CARD________________________ CREDIT CARD #_______________________________ BILLING ADDRESS ____________________________ CITY_________________________________________ STATE___________________ZIP__________________ COUNTRY____________________________________ PHONE INCLUDE AREA CODE___________________ EMAIL ADDRESS______________________________ WE WILL BILL selected amount to your account (shipping costs included!!!) FAX your order and the above requested credit card information to: FAX # ++41 61 923 94 41 ---> AUTOMATED ORDER FAX ONLY!!!! ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SUCCESSFULLY MAIL QUICKLY, PROPERLY, & LEGALLY IS PROVIDED WITH YOUR ORDER. Please NOTE: This advertisement is NOT sponsored by ANY Internet Service Provider!!! From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 23 04:11:26 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 04:11:26 -0700 Subject: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages. In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010822224029.02f5c4d0@idiom.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010808122935.008e2930@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010823041126.00942730@pop.sprynet.com> At 11:00 PM 8/22/01 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >Cable modems don't gain you much - there's great downstream speed, >so the remailer doesn't interfere with your other usage much >and you can absorb bursts of traffic, but the upstream is usually limited >to 128kbps in most of the US - only double the capacity of Julf's. >Also, most cable-modem carriers have highly short-sighted views of >what activities they want to allow and how many complaints they'll tolerate, >so you could get the boot pretty fast if you're not a middleman or in-only. > 128Kby/sec is 10 messages/sec. That's a lot for a 'commodity' home connection. 10 messages/sec because many remailers are text-only, no attachments. Few messages exceed 10Kby. The real issue IMHO is that, despite the boxes and pipes, the tech is not sufficiently deployed yet. We are hyping phone scramblers when telegraphs are more common. From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 23 04:45:31 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 04:45:31 -0700 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: References: <"YTM0OTU=.a0cb5a3cdaecbf00111cafd67306f924@998521662.cotse .c om"> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010823044531.0093d620@pop.sprynet.com> At 10:43 AM 8/23/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: > >Using cast aluminum cases, copper foil shielding, tight glands which Just because you're German doesn't mean you can say 'tight glands' without a snicker. 'Highly conductive gaskets' is perhaps less likely to amuse the more adolescent among us. Faustine, look up Faraday cages, TEMPEST, and search the archives. As if you didn't know. Succinctly, the electron gas in metals shields you from the electromagnetic antics of distant, radiating electrons, by shorting the ripples in the aether they make -and this shielding makes it harder to listen to your emissions, too. The problem is that cables and ventilation vents are antennae, for sending and receiving both. Testing is key. If you don't measure, you don't know. From pabago2 at excite.com Thu Aug 23 05:05:17 2001 From: pabago2 at excite.com (FC) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 05:05:17 -0700 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108231159.f7NBx0R13196@ak47.algebra.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 23 05:45:24 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 07:45:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [psychohistory] Designing a Legal System (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:42:42 +0800 From: "Chen Yixiong, Eric" Reply-To: psychohistory at yahoogroups.com To: sociologistics at yahoogroups.com, Extropians at extropy.org, msal-politics at yahoogroups.com, psychohistory at yahoogroups.com, asperger_autism_12up at yahoogroups.com Cc: Personal_Discourses at yahoogroups.com Subject: [psychohistory] Designing a Legal System The legal system consists of the set of rules that determine apporiate and non-apporiate behaviour in a society, as well as its the people which enforce it. (For this discussion we will only include the rules portion.) It must make (sometimes conflicting) decisions that affect the lives of those it has justification over. A poorly designed legal system, in the worst case scenerio, can wreak a society as much as, or worse than, an outbreak of war or uncontrollable disease. Less extreme cases can usually result in, but not limited, to the following: 1) bureaucratic inefficiency processing legal cases 2) the conviction of innocent parties 3) the non-remedy or incorrect remedy of undisireable behaviour 4) the inability to implement the rules and remedies 5) in the inefficient method of settlements between the wronged parties and the guilty ones. One would also find it difficult to comply with a poorly designed legal system, for a legal system exists to reduce undesirable behavior against the values of society, and not to make as many things as undisireable as possible thus increasing the cost of participating in that society unneccessarily. Our current legal systems operates much like an expert system, with thick rule books and lots of lawyers. The assumption behind this seems that, you can patch all the holes on the legal system if you have enough rules. However, according to G�del's Incompleteness Theorm, such an undertaking would prove furtile because no one set of a system of rules can provide both a consistent structure nor a complete one. This means, if you want a "fair" (as in consistent) laws and yet want these laws to cover everything, then dream on. Yet, the legal system continues, apparently unaware of this contradiction. We had not also figured out the problem of having to learn and memorise such huge rule sets. Who (other than people working directly in the legal system and those with photographic memory, of course) can reasonably remember an encyclopedia's worth of such rules? Yet common law clearly states that ignorance of the law cannot excuse one from legal liability. With each day, as new developments appear in our world that never existed previously which create new legal implications, the rule book only gets deeper. We also have a corresponding book of case laws that get even thicker still. Somehow, it would seem redicious to expect everyone to know all these rules. Hence, I propose using the following systems in combination: - Heuristic System A heuristically based legal system would operate based on objectives instead of rules. First, we have to start from what we want to achieve. We may want to ensure our freedom (such as of the ability to publish freely (i.e. right of free speech)), or we may simply want to prevent overcrowding on buses that could increase accident rates. Firstly, we must determine the fundemental objectives a society wishes to achieve, which we may call a society's value. These should not have too large a number or they will introduce additional complexities and perhaps inconsistents to the legal system. These principles will definitely create ambigulities, because of the "complete" nature. We could include the following varieties: 1) Certain Freedom(s) (e.g. to publish freely, to self-actualise) 2) Persuit of Happiness 3) Preservation of the status quo For each of those we choose or all of them, we must describe a vivid, accurate vision of how a society implementing these rules will look like. We cannot merely declare that one has the "right" to life, or liberty, or happiness, but we must describe and show our vision of a future society operate on these principles to clarify what we mean. Going a step further, we then create a counter-vision, a dystrophic society that implements the opposite rules that we have. We also create a third vision, of someone managing to twist the principles of our society to their opposities, and what syndromes and problems will arrive with this. With this, we fight ambiguity with ambiguity which will hopefully tell us if we had made the right choice. One (usually the founding members) must choose these principles carefully, for to change them would actually mean a change in the entire society and the systems of rules, introducing great instabilities. The same goes for the vision of the society, which one may update in accordance with future technology but not change. Secondly, we have to state our objectives, and then we derive a set of general rules to prevent that. For instance, we could specify a certain formula for the vehicle overloading and allow the owners to compute the exact weight and approximate number of people, instead of declaring an arbitrary and ambiguous amount (such as 150 adults or 300 children). For this case, we may also specify that we wish to reduce pain and suffering by reducing the amount of accidents. For the problem "free speech", we can specify we want free disclosure of information and ideas and then work towards how to make it happen, for instance, by creating a low cost, efficient and non-censored information distribution system that everyone has access to, and then requiring people to publish dually (one copy to the media source they want to publish, and the other to the information system). Note that this concept of "free speech" may again, sound too ambiguous for us to formulate a system to adequately address it. Lastly, the set of general rules must not exceed a certain length and complexity that would in total, take more than a week to learn and understand. They must exist as clearly worded as possible, so that one cannot read multiple interpretions into them. Most importantly, they should exist in the public domain, easily accessible and easily referenced, unlike our current law books. All rules should use this system first, before others. - Expert System A expert system acts as a system of second resort, if heuristics cannot solve an issue. It does not neccessarily alleviate G�del's problem, however, it provides a quick and easy way for one to look up information based on rules without having to consult lawyers and other legal experts who may have a certain bias or incomplete data. It also provides a great substitute to a human judge, which may have biases and insufficient time to handle all cases fast enough. We first assume that we encode our current set of minimum rules into a consistent set of items. We flag ambiguous areas, when we or the system encounters them, and allow users to make a decision about choosing to choose which side of the ambiguity to continue with. The system will also take in decisions made by the legal system previously in helping it to determine the course of action. When the one has a case against him or another, one can simply consult the system, entering the relevant data as the system asks for information. After one has completed the data entry, one should get a rough decision against or for one, or at least probabilistic decision. This decision will also contain summaries and links to full details of the rules explaining the reasoning it uses to arrive at the decision(s). Thus the legal system should also have the aim of reducing the amount of ambiguity in its decisions. This system will demostrate whether a legal system can meet this standard. - Intellicratic An intellicratic system can function in two modes: 1) as a system of last resort, in the absense of a pre-existing legal principles applying to a certain problem In this case the legal system will post all details to the public as an Request for Solutions (RFS). The public will debate and rule over the judgment. After this, we can insert the judgment into the expert system. 2) in the redesign of a system of heuristics or the expert system In the event of the discovery that a certain subset of rules do not further the core values of a society. If a rule does not further the core values, then this rule must crease to exist. The public will rule over the pros and cons of the rule and the remedy, if any, against this problem that the outcasted rule ought to protect. Once a ruling had occured, this information will enter the expert system and help define future related issues. Hence, I had proposed how a possible improved legal system could operate. For more data about Intellicracy, please refer to sociologistics.webhop.org _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/M8mxkD/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/VjIolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-~> to unsubscribe from this group, send a blank message to mailto:psychohistory-unsubscribe at egroups.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 23 08:05:52 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 08:05:52 -0700 Subject: Shielding, Van Eck, and Faraday Cages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108231508.f7NF81f30410@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 01:43 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > >> Have you happened to have seen any good papers on constructing do-it- >> yourself cheap, effective, portable shielding? Probably might as well >> ask for the moon too while I'm at it, but it's worth a shot! > > Using cast aluminum cases, copper foil shielding, tight glands which > preferably transport only optical signals or coax, using low power parts > which don't clock too many Hz, and the like. > > Even if you don't have access to a testing facility, careful work and > some > thinking will eventually make you very, very silent. > Even without spectrum analyzers and the like, it's relatively easy to test shielding: use a portable radio. Tune it to a couple of stations, loud. Put in inside the Faraday cage. If you can still hear it, not very effective. (Sound muffling should be second-order, but easy to take into account.) To get fancier, instrument the radio. Put a meter on the speaker outputs. Tune to several frequencies. What can't get in can't get out. Though this RF method is mostly working in the RF spectrum, it gives a good indication of overall shielding. Can push this up in frequency in the obvious ways. We used this method to test the Faraday cage I worked in when I was doing Josephson Junction stuff. And using the same principle, one can listen to equipment with radios and t.v.s and gauge the effectiveness of shielding. (A signal that is attenuated by 90 db a few inches away will of course be hard for even trucks with large antennas to pick up a block away.) There is much out there on building Faraday cages, either large ones or small ones. Search engines will turn up suppliers and papers. The "heads up" displays of a couple of vendors are the likely long-term solution to a lot of supposed Van Eck radiation snooping. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 23 08:21:51 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 08:21:51 -0700 Subject: Testing RF shielding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108231524.f7NFNxf30549@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 05:32 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote: >> >> Testing is key. If you don't measure, you don't know. > > Renting time in HF testing facilities is expensive. Do you have > suggestions for a simple sniffer type of instrument, that detects the > amplitude of a radiated field? Do FETs pick up HF fine? See my other post. Radios work fine. Even the leakage of a computer at much higher than radio frequencies still causes interference (beat frequencies, emissions at the lower frequencies). A blaring radio that becomes dead quiet when placed inside an enclosure is a pretty good indicator of good shielding. There are also readily available things that operate at multi-gigahertz frequencies. 802.11, if I recall correctly. A simple test with Wavelan or Airport could be rigged. (The protocol will likely fail long before the signal fades out by enough db to be interesting, so you may have to put some metering on an analog output somewhere. ) Renting a spectrum analzyer is another choice, if you're serious about this. (Or buying one on the surplus market.) But, like I said, we used a portable radio to test our Faraday cages. > I intend to build me a wearable based on a LART type of board > http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/ > A minor note. Your English is excellent, but "I intend to build me a..." is not ideal grammar. "I intend to build myself a..." is the correct form. Your form is used by some native English speakers, though. Usually in the American south or rural west. --Tim May From mailerdaemon at mailweb.com Thu Aug 23 09:00:57 2001 From: mailerdaemon at mailweb.com (Mailer Daemon) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:00:57 Subject: failure notice Message-ID: <200108230301.UAA27933@ecotone.toad.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 477 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bill.stewart at pobox.com Thu Aug 23 09:07:32 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:07:32 -0700 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special TEMPEST edition In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010823044531.0093d620@pop.sprynet.com> References: <"YTM0OTU=.a0cb5a3cdaecbf00111cafd67306f924@998521662.cotse .c om"> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010823085401.03076770@idiom.com> At 04:45 AM 08/23/2001 -0700, David Honig wrote: >Faustine, look up Faraday cages, TEMPEST, and search the archives. >As if you didn't know. Succinctly, the electron gas in metals shields you >from the electromagnetic antics of distant, radiating electrons, by >shorting the >ripples in the aether they make -and this shielding makes it harder to listen >to your emissions, too. The problem is that cables and ventilation vents >are antennae, >for sending and receiving both. > >Testing is key. If you don't measure, you don't know. This stuff was a *lot* easier when computers were slower. I used to test my TEMPEST room at 450MHz, since that was high enough frequency to cover any realistic level of emissions from the upper harmonics from the VAX, and it was also a short enough wavelength that leaks were pretty detectable. It doesn't take much to get a leak - copper foil on a joint wearing out, or the copper mesh we'd stuff inside gaskets getting set unevenly. The waveguides we used for fiber or air vents were typically 1/8 inch wide and an inch or two deep - and if you pushed a paperclip halfway through you'd twang the leak meter. Well, that was fine for computers that were around 10MHz. These days, when 1GHz is slow, there's tons of stray energy above that, and that stuff is much more penetrating, plus you've got all the 100 and 133MHz memory and disk bus stuff. Fortunately, the equipment runs at much lower power levels; you can run on batteries instead of 208-volt 3-phase (:-), but I'm still glad I don't have to design a room or even a box for that level of tightness. That room was still in active use with a VAX 8650; we retired it about when we put in the Sparcstation 1 or 1+ - were those 25MHz? From bill.stewart at pobox.com Thu Aug 23 09:26:18 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:26:18 -0700 Subject: Top Firms Retreat Into Bunker To Ward Off 'Anarchists' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010823091648.030750c0@idiom.com> That's rather old news, and was even rather old news when the newspapers discovered it; the "anarchist protestors" PR spin was just taking advantage of current events to hook an article on. Ben Laurie and thebunker.net are well known in cypherpunks circles, and you'll find a fair bit of discussion in the cypherpunks archives. IIRC, they were even bidding on a second bunker for expansion space, though given the last 3 months' transition in the US internet hosting space market (from "We're all building like mad!" to "Ohhh, noooo! What a glut!") I hope they're able to make the right financial choices. The UK is probably not flooded with the things yet, and while a nuclear-proof bunker may be overkill for offsite backup space, you do need a certain level of security and reliable power if you're in a business like banking that can't afford to lose data. Also see the last month's worth of userfriendly.org/static cartoons.... At 12:21 PM 08/22/2001 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote: >From: "Moon Kat" >To: freematt at coil.com >Subject: Top firms retreat into bunker to ward off 'Anarchists' >Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:46:41 +0000 > >Hi Matt > >Not sure if you've seen this one already but here goes. Quite where the >anti-capitalists are going to get a thermonuclear bomb from isn't >explained in the article but surely such a device would compromise their >"Neo-Luddite" principles anyway? > >Yours, in a fallout shelter, somewhere west of London > >dK > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >TOP FIRMS RETREAT INTO BUNKER TO WARD OFF 'ANARCHISTS' > >"Some of Britain's biggest companies are running their Internet operations >on systems installed in a 300ft-deep nuclear blast-proof bunker to protect >customers from violent anti-capitalist campaigners. They are renting space >in hermetically sealed rooms capable of withstanding a one Kiloton >explosion, electro-magnetic 'pulse bombs', electronic eavesdropping and >chemical and biological warfare." From bill.stewart at pobox.com Thu Aug 23 09:42:29 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:42:29 -0700 Subject: "Space War" In-Reply-To: References: <200108061817.OAA06982@smtp6.mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010823093948.02f70380@idiom.com> Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" has a lot of good discussion on moon-bounce work by the NSA. As Phillip wrote, two of the main applications were passive eavesdropping on Soviet communucations (though satellites later did a *much* better job) and very non-directional communications to/from spy ships. At 04:03 PM 08/06/2001 -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote: > > John Young Wrote: [...] > > What else is being done there remains to be disclosed. > >Two applications I've heard of: > >1. Here's an excerpt from a US Navy press release: >"Jim Trexler was Lorenzen's project engineer for PAMOR (PAssive MOon Relay, >a.k.a. 'Moon Bounce'), which collected interior Soviet electronics and >communication signals reflected from the moon." >URL: http://www.pao.nrl.navy.mil/rel-00/32-00r.html > >2. On another site: "...The new Liberty was a 455-foot-long spy ship >crammed with listening equipment and specialists to operate it. The vessel's >most distinctive piece of hardware was a sixteen-foot-wide dish antenna that >could bounce intercepted intelligence off the moon to a receiving station in >Maryland in a ten-thousand-watt microwave signal that enabled it to transmit >large quantities of information without giving away the Liberty's location.* >*The system, known as TRSSCOMM, for Technical Research Ship Special >Communications, had to be pointed at a particular spot on the moon while a >computer compensated for the ship's rolling and pitching. The computers and >the antenna s hydraulic steering mechanism did not work well together, >creating frequent problems." >URL: http://www.euronet.nl/~rembert/echelon/db08.htm > >phillip From bill.stewart at pobox.com Thu Aug 23 09:49:13 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:49:13 -0700 Subject: 10'th Anniversary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010823094834.03074650@idiom.com> At 04:17 PM 08/04/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >What would be the 'official' crank-up date on the Cypherpunks mailing list >in 1992? Time for a 10 year anniversary. Cranks have been up on the list since pretty near the beginning.... :-) From nobody at paranoici.org Thu Aug 23 00:58:29 2001 From: nobody at paranoici.org (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:58:29 +0200 Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: <3e7757f08fbc62157874c1633db7c246@paranoici.org> Tim May wrote: > I find it lower. Maybe it's just me. A lot of gibbering, ranting, > and insults-without-traceability. Doesn't mean I don't "support" the > legality and technology of remailers, just a comment on what traffic > I see from them. Not surprising, of course. It may depend on your window. Remailer traffic's been pretty good for the last six months. No spam, for example. Yes, one would expect all sorts of trash, but for some reason that's not happening right now. > The technology won't get there by a particular person using > remailers, inasmuch as the actions of that person don't cause others > to change. Setting a good example is an effective technique. I'm using remailers because of somebody else's example. > This is also known as the "but what if everyone did what you're > doing?" fallacy. I've grokked this since around 1966. Why isn't > this obvious? Fewer people doing it just means the process is slower. It's really a question of whether one wants to participate. > 2) I used the earlier Cypherpunks remailers in their first month of > operation, in 1992. More to the point, I architected the basic > features remailers should have at the first Cypherpunks > meeting. Check the archives if you doubt this. Actually, I consider the Great Timothy May to be beyond my judgment. (No irony intended.) In general, however, it's hard to understand why people who claim to be cypherpunks won't use remailers or even encrypted mail. The "I only use these tools when I'm committing felonies" model is flawed. If people were saying they are not interested in these tools or technologies, then there's no issue. But what I don't understand is people claiming this stuff is interesting but then not even using it. Even worse, many actually disparage those using encryption or remailers and yet remain subscribed to this list. Strange. Using something is the first step to extending and improving it. Even non-coder users are helpful because they can encourage the coders to make things better, as well as sending in bug reports, suggestions for improvement, etc. etc. No technology is developed solely at the drafting board. People need to hammer on it, kick it around, and play with it, before it gets to be solid. > 5) Signing an article is giving away something of value. (For > example, it might be used against the signer.) Absent some reason to > sign, some "consideration," why sign a post? You got me there, pal. (If there was more noise coming from remailers I'd probably sign posts so filtering would be feasible. Hopefully, I'd be filtered in!) > Fuck that. Cypherpunks care about both code _and_ ideology, else why > bother? If Rijndael C code is all that matters, why not just drop > Cypherpunks and join Perrypunks? > Oh wait, it seems most nitwits _have_. Never mind. Many of these people are potentially useful. It is unfortunate that they fled instead of seeking technical solutions. I consider this a serious mistake. From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 23 10:18:28 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:18:28 -0700 Subject: Testing RF Shielding Message-ID: <3B853AE4.A061DDBC@lsil.com> http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/avcom/psa-65Cspecanal.htm Not cheap but within reach. If someone gets serious I could get advice about equipment and methods from a friend who did this sort of testing for years. If you don't have a Faraday cage and a spectrum analyzer and you still want a rough idea of how noisy your device is you can tune an AM radio to a vacant space between stations, crank up the volume, and listen for your device's noise. Turn it on and off, press some buttons, you can actually make some pretty good correlations between what you hear and what your equipment is doing. There will probably be some nice configurable SW radios soon. I don't know about sensitivity or noise problems that might go along with this but it seems pretty interesting. Maybe someone who knows more could comment. Mike From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Aug 23 01:43:28 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:43:28 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <"YTM0OTU=.a0cb5a3cdaecbf00111cafd67306f924@998521662.cotse .c om"> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Have you happened to have seen any good papers on constructing do-it- > yourself cheap, effective, portable shielding? Probably might as well > ask for the moon too while I'm at it, but it's worth a shot! Using cast aluminum cases, copper foil shielding, tight glands which preferably transport only optical signals or coax, using low power parts which don't clock too many Hz, and the like. Even if you don't have access to a testing facility, careful work and some thinking will eventually make you very, very silent. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 23 10:58:43 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:58:43 -0700 Subject: Shielding Message-ID: <3B854453.5A9E1FB3@lsil.com> Lots of shielding products are available. Whole rooms : http://www.emctest.com/ A complete test setup : http://www.emctest.com/onsale.cfm Cu tape : http://www.2spi.com/catalog/spec_prep/5tapes.html Cu foil, cheap, no adhesive : http://www.glassmart.com/regular_foil.asp Cu Sheet : http://hi-one.com/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?ID=2078 Ag paint : http://www.2spi.com/catalog/spec_prep/spinstr.html All kinds of ferrites can be found : http://www.fair-rite.com/ Knock yerself out. Focus on the keyboard and the display. From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 23 11:09:52 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:09:52 -0700 Subject: Shielding Message-ID: <3B8546F0.22EDBC3B@lsil.com> One simple comment. Below. Bill Stewart wrote : >At 04:45 AM 08/23/2001 -0700, David Honig wrote: >>Faustine, look up Faraday cages, TEMPEST, and search the archives. >>As if you didn't know. Succinctly, the electron gas in metals shields you >>from the electromagnetic antics of distant, radiating electrons, by >>shorting the >>ripples in the aether they make -and this shielding makes it harder to listen >>to your emissions, too. The problem is that cables and ventilation vents >>are antennae, >>for sending and receiving both. >> >>Testing is key. If you don't measure, you don't know. > >This stuff was a *lot* easier when computers were slower. >I used to test my TEMPEST room at 450MHz, since that was high enough frequency >to cover any realistic level of emissions from the upper harmonics from the >VAX, >and it was also a short enough wavelength that leaks were pretty detectable. >It doesn't take much to get a leak - copper foil on a joint wearing out, >or the copper mesh we'd stuff inside gaskets getting set unevenly. >The waveguides we used for fiber or air vents were typically 1/8 inch wide >and an inch or two deep - and if you pushed a paperclip halfway through you'd >twang the leak meter. > >Well, that was fine for computers that were around 10MHz. >These days, when 1GHz is slow, there's tons of stray energy above that, >and that stuff is much more penetrating, plus you've got all the > The skin depth is proportional to f^(-0.5). The skin depth for Cu at 100MHz is about 0.00026". At 1600MHZ it should be ~0.000065 I think maybe 'sneakier' ( because of its smaller wavelength ) is closer than 'more penetrating' ( it is actually less penetrating in a conductor ). Mike >100 and 133MHz memory and disk bus stuff. >Fortunately, the equipment runs at much lower power levels; >you can run on batteries instead of 208-volt 3-phase (:-), >but I'm still glad I don't have to design a room or even a box >for that level of tightness. From adam at homeport.org Thu Aug 23 08:47:15 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:47:15 -0400 Subject: Shielding, Van Eck, and Faraday Cages In-Reply-To: <200108231508.f7NF81f30410@slack.lne.com> References: <200108231508.f7NF81f30410@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010823114715.A28131@weathership.homeport.org> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 08:05:52AM -0700, Tim May wrote: | On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 01:43 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote: | | > On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: | > | >> Have you happened to have seen any good papers on constructing do-it- | >> yourself cheap, effective, portable shielding? Probably might as well | >> ask for the moon too while I'm at it, but it's worth a shot! | > | > Using cast aluminum cases, copper foil shielding, tight glands which | > preferably transport only optical signals or coax, using low power parts | > which don't clock too many Hz, and the like. | > | > Even if you don't have access to a testing facility, careful work and | > some | > thinking will eventually make you very, very silent. | > | | | Even without spectrum analyzers and the like, it's relatively easy to | test shielding: use a portable radio. Tune it to a couple of stations, | loud. Put in inside the Faraday cage. If you can still hear it, not very | effective. (Sound muffling should be second-order, but easy to take into | account.) Theres an IEEE standard on doing this work, 299-1997, thats very good, easy to understand and follow. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From Kidsheep at 21cn.com Wed Aug 22 21:55:17 2001 From: Kidsheep at 21cn.com (Kidsheep) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:55:17 +0800 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <20010823125510.DEB9.KIDSHEEP@21cn.com> -- Yours sincerely Kidsheep From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Aug 23 05:32:31 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:32:31 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010823044531.0093d620@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, David Honig wrote: > Just because you're German doesn't mean you can say 'tight glands' > without a snicker. 'Highly conductive gaskets' is perhaps less likely Um, how do you know I wrote it without a snicker? ;) Actually, I was referring to cable ducts which can act as a waveguide. Of course, a fiber is rather thin, and it can be wrapped with adhesive copper strips, so that it wouldn't be just a hole. > to amuse the more adolescent among us. > > Testing is key. If you don't measure, you don't know. Renting time in HF testing facilities is expensive. Do you have suggestions for a simple sniffer type of instrument, that detects the amplitude of a radiated field? Do FETs pick up HF fine? I intend to build me a wearable based on a LART type of board http://www.lart.tudelft.nl/ which will also house the crypto setup. Tempest proofing the rig will be definitely part of the considerations. I see most problems with the twiddler and the hud. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From gbroiles at well.com Thu Aug 23 15:17:50 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:17:50 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108211909.f7LJ9Mf19487@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010823150127.0389dbc0@pop3.norton.antivirus> >I just don't see spending 3-4 years in law school as being very exciting. >And I don't mean my personal opinion of whether I'd go to law school or >not: I mean that not much exciting work is being done by lawyers. Most are >tucked-away in cubicles, in government offices, in small one-person >offices scattered hither and yon. Processing wills. Forwarding escrow >documents. Reviewing divorce papers. Ugh. > >But people should do what really drives them. Anyone going into law this >late in the boom just to make money is probably going to be in for a rude >awakening. Ditto for anyone going into it in order to do pro bono work on >Cypherpunks issues. Yeah. People thinking about law school should spend some time talking with currently practicing (or non-practicing) attorneys and validate their assumptions and expectations before investing years of their lives and tens of thousands of dollars. The practice of law isn't what it looks like from the movies and TV - mostly what people don't understand is that the practice of law is a business, and it's a service business, where revenue is directly linked to hours of human effort applied to market demand. If the demand's not there, or the human effort's not there, there's no revenue - nor if the clients can't pay. Attorneys who make a lot of money do so only by leveraging the efforts of junior attorneys and support staff, just like any other service business, and consequently spend a significant amount of time managaing and marketing instead of lawyering. None of the prominent Cypherpunk trials have featured defendants with the budget to hire defense counsel, nor the inclination to turn over strategic or tactical decisions to their attorneys. Those trials weren't opportunities to make lots of money, or show off one's learned skills - they were tar pits of malpractice and resentment. (That doesn't mean the prosecutions or convictions were necessarily reasonable, nor that the defendants deserved what happened to them, but they weren't situations where some Legal Lone Ranger was needed to ride onto the scene and save the day.) Even the current prosecution of Dmitri Sklyarov is being handled in a non-cypherpunk way (and that's good for him) - e.g., no full-court-press on Constitutional grounds, his attorney is talking quietly with his colleagues in the US Attorney's office, likely to positive results for Sklyarov. Firebreathing, Stallman-quoting Disney-DMCA-Adobe-hating activist-lawyers wouldn't make things better here. People who want to make money or privacy should look to technology long before they look to law - law is slow, conservative, and full of fussy rules. Just write code. I find that Oliver Wendell Holmes' commentary "The Path of the Law", written in 1897, is still incredibly insightful and on-topic regarding the relationship between law, morality, and the utility of a legal education, especially as discussed on the list. It's available (following a ridiculous amount of Project Gutenberg legal and marketing horseshit) at . -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From gbroiles at well.com Thu Aug 23 15:32:32 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:32:32 -0700 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108232046.QAA25952@waste.minder.net> References: <200108222128.RAA28905@waste.minder.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010823152440.045e8440@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 09:48 PM 8/23/2001 +0100, r.duke at freedom.net wrote: >Mind you, most of the lawyers I've spoken to seem feel that the Internet >is nothing new, legally. This leads me to think that lawyers on the whole, >are not particularly imaginative or attentive people. An alternate explanation might be that our legal tradition goes back, in some cases, to Roman times, and has already proven flexible and adaptable enough to encompass whatever flavor-of-the-week technologists are excited about now. It's not like technological change, in itself, is unheard of. What exactly is it that you think is new about the Internet, legally speaking? >>They also have a newsletter, "The Filter," which is sometimes interesting. >>This year they started running a 5-day "Internet Law Program of >>Instruction," if you happen to have a spare $2500. > >Oh hurrah. A bargain. That's not bad, as things go, for a week of classes, if they're giving MCLE credits and have a nice continental breakfast. It's not like the attendees are expected to pay for this out of their own pockets. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 23 12:44:13 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010823044531.0093d620@pop.sprynet.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010823044531.0093d620@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: david wrote: > Faustine, look up Faraday cages, TEMPEST, and search the archives. As > if you didn't know. I know, I was just hoping for a few meaningful shortcuts to achieving the full combination of "do-it-yourself" (because tinkering is more satisfying than COTS), "cheap"(limited funds; low on my priority list), "effective"(too much hokum floating around the subject), and "portable" (obvious). It's still a tall order, but I've found the discussion so far quite helpful. There you go! ~Faustine. From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 23 15:53:50 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:53:50 -0700 Subject: Quantum Computation/Cryptography at Los Alamos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108232255.f7NMtvf32650@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 03:17 PM, Faustine wrote: > Los Alamos develops quantum crypto system > By Chappell Brown > Electrical Engineering Times > (08/23/01, 1:06 p.m. EST) > > > LOS ALAMOS, N.M.  Engineers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have > developed what they believe is a practical quantum cryptographic system. > The system features two portable units that can encrypt and decrypt > information transmitted via photons. Experiments have shown that > encryption > keys can be sent via free-space transmission at distances of up to 6 > miles. > The system could be used to ensure safe communications between > satellites. > > Quantum cryptography uses the fundamental law of quantum mechanics: Any > observation of a system changes its state. Since photons are elementary > particles, they are subject to the law. If a third party attempts to > "tune > in" to the encrypted transmission, the quantum state of the photons will > change, allowing the eavesdropping to be detected. > Faustine is becoming the new Jim Choate, regurgitating old topics, lecturing us on what she/he/it thinks we don't know, and forwarding items which were stale years ago. Clue: This list is not just a dumping ground for anything with the word "crypto" in it. Metaclue: get a clue. ObFaustineWhine/Predictable: "Some of us are Important Researchers, being paid to sit in our cubicles and surf the Net. Just because we learned about this list last month does not mean we don't have the _right_ to forward everything we learn about crypto to this list!" --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 23 16:14:04 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:14:04 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010823152440.045e8440@pop3.norton.antivirus> Message-ID: <200108232316.f7NNGEf32737@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 03:32 PM, Greg Broiles wrote: > That's not bad, as things go, for a week of classes, if they're giving > MCLE credits and have a nice continental breakfast. It's not like the > attendees are expected to pay for this out of their own pockets. > > Conferences are as dysfunctional, in my view, as our system of paying doctors is. I mostly stopped going to conferences when I was faced with escalating fees apparently based on the model of "But _you_ won't be paying the fees, your conference-care-provider will!" The working assumption for medical care is that the "insurance company" will be stiffed with the $300 fee for a 15-minute consultation. Pity the fool who walks into an office without his Pseudo-Socialized Health Care Freebie Card and is told a simple consultation will cost him $300 for 15 minutes of time from a distracted doctor from some Turd World country. Ditto for conferences and paid classes, which are now priced at stratospheric prices because 50% of the attendees are "comped," and b) because most of the other 50% are attending as a kind of bennie or freebie or paid vacation from their employers. Hence I rarely go to professional conferences. I blame the tax system (deductiblity for some, nondedeductibility for others--no conference I have attended since 1986 has ever been "deductible" for me), the comped journalist system, and the whole notion of people trying to get others to pay for their costs system. In a way, it's hilarious. I see programmers now going down the route of lawyers. The bookshelves in my local Borders are now filled with vast numbers of "MSCEE" or somesuch bullshit books on how to become a "Certified Microsoft Annointed Trainee Expert" drone. Apparently to help lugnut businessmen install "Windows Me!" one is now expected to have "completed" X number of hours of training in how to insert a diskette, how to attach a USB printer, etc. The pendulum will eventually swing the other way, toward where competency (reputational, demonstrated) will count for more than numbers of "MCEE" and "CMATE" hours. Meanwhile, don't expect to see me at the next CFP conference! Plenty of comped scribblers, though. --Tim May From alfaqar at paknet3.ptc.pk Thu Aug 23 04:15:35 2001 From: alfaqar at paknet3.ptc.pk (Textiles) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:15:35 +0500 Subject: STAINLESS STEEL PIPES AND TUBES Message-ID: <001501c12bc4$f05d1120$0f02000a@saeed> MUHAMMAD UMAIR HAMEED, M2/E888, SSC-BLK-C, KHI-75730 [PK] Email:- paktrade at khi.paknet.com.pk,bsasteel at aol.net.pk,alfaqar at paknet3.ptc.pk Fax:- 92-21-7775337/7730667/2563698 AND VOICE 2564053/2578624/7777746 Dear, Sir I want some stainless steel pipes and tubes.{AISI304}-{AISI316} Quantity up to 2 to 5 containers. Please give me lowest price FOB base. I will be very thank full to you. WAITING FOR YOUR KIND REPLY. With best regards, UMAIR HAMEED -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 1459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From presignup at pcb.net Thu Aug 23 16:54:23 2001 From: presignup at pcb.net (Customer Support) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:54:23 Subject: Unique Internet Payment Platform Message-ID: <200108231407.JAA06603@einstein.ssz.com> Dear Friend, We Are Pleased To Announce The Internet Service You Have Been Waiting For! You have always believed paying through the Internet is expensive and not safe! You were right! But now all this belongs to the past because we introduce the: "CAPITAL CARD" Now you can Make and Receive Internet Payments: * Safe and Secure! * Fast and Convenient! * Private and Anonymous! * Inexpensive and Rewarding! Who Can Benefit Of Our Services! All present and future Internet Users that (occasionally) purchase products and services on the Internet. Especially those that are: * Business Owners * Entrepreneurs * Home Based Operators * Sales Professionals * Financial Consultants And further more: * All of you that want to become a Successful Individual! * All of you who seek an Opportunity to Create a Better Life and a Financially Secured Future! Today you can Pre-Sign Up for this Great New Service, without any obligation! Please go to: http://www.PrivateCapitalBuilder.com **No Need To remove, This Is A One-Time Only Mailing*** From ravage at ssz.com Thu Aug 23 15:14:07 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:14:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: Inferno: Fw: [nycwireless] Seattle Weekly - "The revolution may be wireless" (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Townsend" To: "Telecom-Cities" Cc: Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 10:33 AM Subject: [nycwireless] Seattle Weekly - "The revolution may be wireless" > http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0129/tech-fleishman.shtml > > Published July 19 - 25, 2001 > > The revolution may be wireless: Northwest networkers work toward a complete > communications grid, minus the corporate interest. > > BY GLENN FLEISHMAN > > WHEN I WAS A KID, before I discovered theater and girls, a friendly amateur > radio operator (a "ham") took me under his wing, helped me learn Morse code, > and introduced me to the joys of talking to people all over the world using > a transmitter. > > Fade quickly into adolescence, acting, and acne, and I could barely remember > the dits and dahs--ham slang for dots and dashes--to tap out an SOS. > > But those days return vividly when I speak with techie sophisticates who are > building their own free community wireless networks, networks which, > coincidentally, share some open radio frequencies with hams. > > These networkers string their tin-can network--sans string but including > some real cans--from apartment to storefront to rooftop for no better reason > than because they can and because it's cool. The fact that it's useful, > helps the public good by expanding free access, lets them meet their > neighbors ("Hi, I'm running a free network"), and might even put the screws > to cell companies and telco giants--these are but lagniappe. > > Adam Shand, the organizer of a late June summit in Portland, Ore., of these > network builders and advocates, thinks that the interest stems from it being > a "fun geek problem." As to the upshot of it all, he says, "No one's quite > sure yet; we don't know what our ending goal is." > > Seattle finds itself with a growing group of enthusiasts led, as much as any > group of this kind can be led, by Matt Westervelt under the rubric Seattle > Wireless (www.seattlewireless.net). Matt and others have collected a few > dozen geographically dispersed nodes in homes and places like Aurafice Cafe > on Capitol Hill. They are nearing the point where they stitch these points > into a sprawling, mostly seamless grid using cheap, off-the-shelf, and even > homemade equipment. > > The Seattle crew and dozens of similar networks around the world rely on > IEEE 802.11b (or Wi-Fi), the industry standard for high-speed, low-power > wireless. It doesn't require a license to broadcast on the frequencies it > uses in the 2.4 gigahertz band; Wi-Fi uses some of the thinly apportioned, > unlicensed free public spectrum. > > Wi-Fi runs at very low power due to FCC limits, but it can still span dozens > to hundreds of feet indoors through walls and floors; the high frequency > allows the radio waves to pass through. Outdoors, however, the distance > expands dramatically. Twenty-mile line-of-sight tests using cheap equipment > were successful, and I've heard of many working multiple-mile links. > > The 802.11b protocol allows central access points (APs) to coordinate > networks of machines or to connect multiple wired networks. Dozens of > manufacturers make APs, as well as PC cards for laptops, PCI cards for > desktops, USB and Ethernet adapters for older machines, and special modules > for handhelds like the Handspring Visor. > > With enough density of APs, you can build a seamless network allowing both > indoor and outdoor use at speeds of megabits per second. You could walk > around with a laptop streaming video off the Net with nary an interruption. > (A Wall Street Journal story earlier this year followed someone doing just > that around London.) > > Most volunteers' nodes have a high-speed DSL or cable modem connection to > the Internet. The volunteers are engaging in anarchic enlightened > self-interest: By freely sharing their bandwidth, they're increasing the > value and coverage of the entire network, making it more likely for others > to join and share as well. (It warms my heart, reminding me strongly of the > 1994-vintage barely commercial Internet.) > > These volunteers typically also have the advantage of access to their own > roofs and windows, where they mount cheap, sometimes homemade high-gain > antennas that extend the range and sensitivity of a network. > > This is where the free networkers believe they have an advantage over > commercial services, such as MobileStar (www.mobilestar.com), Starbucks' > wireless networking partner (see "Wired But Wireless," May 31). Commercial > outfits would have to make their own, presumably fee-based arrangements to > locate and service antennas and high-speed network connections. > > It's hard to call free wireless networking a movement, because the dozens of > organizations and thousands of individuals involved are scattered around the > globe. But a loose affiliation has started to develop, and the recent > Portland summit furthered ties among builders from Seattle, Portland, and > Vancouver, and those farther afield in New York and the Bay Area. > > Some met privately one day to discuss creating an association and pooling > resources, and the next day met in public to present several sessions on > building antennas, creating network maps online, and the status of for-fee > Wi-Fi (disclaimer: I was gently roped into presenting). > > The interest is there; the nodes exist; the volunteers are working hard. > These advocates and builders may not know why they're on this bus, but they > know how to drive it. The revolution may not be televised; it's more > probable that it will be wireless. > > info at seattleweekly.com > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > > Loosely affiliated members of this group include: > > BAWUG, primarily an educational group: www.bawug.org > > Nocat, in Marin County north of San Francisco, some of the members of which > also happen to work for technical publisher O'Reilly & Associates: nocat.net > > PDXWireless and Personal Telco in Portland, which have merged their > interests and meetings: www.personaltelco.net, www.pdxwireless.com > > NYCWireless: www.nycwireless.net > > BCWireless: www.bcwireless.net > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > -- > NYC Wireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 23 14:22:16 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:22:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: anonymous wrote: >Yes, one would expect all sorts of trash, but for some reason that's >not happening right now. This thread certainly passed my threshold of being interesting enough to reply to, but it's atypical. If I have a low opinion of the kinds of anonymous interactions I've had in the past and would rather skip people who don't have anything to say, it means I either have to wade through stuff that wastes my time or miss out reading posts like yours. I don't think that's a terribly effective way to organize a list or have discussions. > 2) I used the earlier Cypherpunks remailers in their first month of > operation, in 1992. More to the point, I architected the basic > features remailers should have at the first Cypherpunks > meeting. Check the archives if you doubt this. >Actually, I consider the Great Timothy May to be beyond my judgment. >(No irony intended.) Just thought I'd point out that if someone is beyond your judgment, it means you're operating on faith. Question everyone; get a spine. Why isn't this obvious? >In general, however, it's hard to understand why people who claim to >be cypherpunks won't use remailers or even encrypted mail. The "I >only use these tools when I'm committing felonies" model is flawed. You have zero reason to think you have the faintest idea who here uses remailers and encryption when, why, for what, to whom, and under what circumstances based on whether or not they use it posting to a mailing list. It's a hell of a presumption on your part. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to try to dictate how people should conduct their affairs. For what it's worth, technically speaking, Hushmail and Cotse ARE encrypted remailers, just psuedoanonymous ones. >If people were saying they are not interested in these tools or >technologies, then there's no issue. But what I don't understand is >people claiming this stuff is interesting but then not even using it. Re-read my posts on this carefully and see if you still think that's a good characterization of what I said. >Even worse, many actually disparage those using encryption or >remailers and yet remain subscribed to this list. Strange. Elementary logic: disparaging people who happen to use encryption and remailers is neither equivalent to disparaging the use of encryption and remailers nor equivalant to disparaging people because they happen to use encryption and remailers. >(If there was more noise coming from remailers I'd probably sign posts >so filtering would be feasible. Hopefully, I'd be filtered in!) If this is what you normally sound like, I wouldn't filter you out. It's not that I disagree with you that much, you're mainly just misunderstanding me. But if you're one of the anonymouses who won't sign your name to insults and baseless accusations? Well, I'd say you'd be better off the way you are. Just dont expect me to waste time reading it. ~Faustine. From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 23 17:23:41 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:23:41 -0700 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108232341.TAA31641@waste.minder.net> Message-ID: <200108240024.f7O0Olf00502@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 04:43 PM, r.duke at freedom.net wrote: > I would have thought that new interpretations of things like federal > and state jurisdictions would be needed. Given the arguments over the > recent decision on Yahoo from France, I'd say there are questions to be > answered. Is a company under your jurisdiction as soon as you can see > its servers? Are ISPs carriers, or providers? What about their > webservers, which store and provide, as opposed to simply carrying? In the Yahoo case, how does U.S. law affect what France claims is true under their law? Apropos of what Greg said, in which recent cases actually going to trial in the U.S. is "new law" involved? Not the Bell case, not the Parker case, not even the Adobe case. > > Tell me if I'm wildly off base - I don't mind, but it seems to me that > at the moment, these issues are not obvious and written in stone. Oh, I agree there are interesting issues...it's one reason I joined the Cyberia list of lawyers and professors and wannabees back around 1994-5. And back then, many of these issues were new to a lot of us all, even to the law professors (Volokh, Froomkin, Post, Lessig, that sort). But there just aren't a lot of these cases moving through the courts. The Napster case was the biggest recent such case, and yet it is hard to argue that there is any new law at issue. ("But, your honor, my client is not just setting up a flea market for trading stolen goods...he's using COMPUTERS to do it! That makes it different, you see...") Eventually there may be some new law, as some cases eventually reach the Supreme Court or as legislatures pass various laws. But is there "new law" for beginning lawyers to work on? Do the math. Cf. the Amateur Action case of the mid-90s for some insights into how Kentucky, IIRC, decided its laws applied to a site based in California. A junior lawyer in this case would not have been doing "Internet law." Technology will push the law more than lawyers will push the law. --Tim May From steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk Thu Aug 23 11:10:59 2001 From: steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk (Steve Mynott) Date: 23 Aug 2001 18:10:59 +0000 Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. In-Reply-To: "Gary Jeffers"'s message of "Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:43:59 -0500" References: Message-ID: "Gary Jeffers" writes: > Would it be possible to write some kind of scanner that would look > at an ISP, say for example, htc.net and display all the Gnutella users > there? We seem to be over the "fax effect" (a Snelling point?) It's a one liner with the fairly standard UNIX tools that ship with OpenBSD and at least SuSE Linux. $ for i in `host -a -l -vv htc.net | grep ppp | awk '{print $5}'`; do nc -w 2 -z $i 6346; done (you can of course run gnutella on ports other than 6346) -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott steve at tightrope.demon.co.uk too many pieces of music finish too long after the end. igor stravinsky From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 23 15:17:33 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:17:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Quantum Computation/Cryptography at Los Alamos Message-ID: Los Alamos develops quantum crypto system By Chappell Brown Electrical Engineering Times (08/23/01, 1:06 p.m. EST) LOS ALAMOS, N.M.  Engineers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have developed what they believe is a practical quantum cryptographic system. The system features two portable units that can encrypt and decrypt information transmitted via photons. Experiments have shown that encryption keys can be sent via free-space transmission at distances of up to 6 miles. The system could be used to ensure safe communications between satellites. Quantum cryptography uses the fundamental law of quantum mechanics: Any observation of a system changes its state. Since photons are elementary particles, they are subject to the law. If a third party attempts to "tune in" to the encrypted transmission, the quantum state of the photons will change, allowing the eavesdropping to be detected. Quantum Computation/Cryptography at Los Alamos homepage http://qso.lanl.gov/qc/ From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 23 18:27:08 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:27:08 -0700 Subject: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010823044531.0093d620@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010823182708.0094c400@pop.sprynet.com> At 02:32 PM 8/23/01 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote: >> Testing is key. If you don't measure, you don't know. > >Renting time in HF testing facilities is expensive. Do you have >suggestions for a simple sniffer type of instrument, that detects the >amplitude of a radiated field? Do FETs pick up HF fine? I'd get a few freq generators (could be real simple, like a crystal osc), a bunch of antennae, and a spectrum analyzer or two. Probably some sheets of RF adsorbing foam to use as attenuators, and for calibration. And the ARRL handbooks. A preamp after your antennae would increase sensitivity. A lot of scanning radios have a signal-strength output which can be used as a wideband spectrum analyzer. With a WinRadio (computer-controlled scanner) you could capture the time-domain waveforms too, which could help with diagnostics. And then I'd spend some time in the desert, or a foil-lined bomb shelter or cave, doing my testing. From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 23 18:29:42 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:29:42 -0700 Subject: Anonymous Posting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108240131.f7O1Vlf00740@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 02:22 PM, "Faustine" wrote: > me. But if you're one of the anonymouses who won't sign your name to > insults and baseless accusations? Well, I'd say you'd be better off the > way > you are. Just dont expect me to waste time reading it. Ironically, this comes from one who uses an obvious (but unsigned!) nym. She/he/it/they criticizes others for "won't sign your name" posts, while we have no way of knowing who she/he/it/they is/are. This entity also claims the list is polluted with pseudonymous and anonymous posts. Ironically, I agree. ~Faustine From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 23 18:44:05 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:44:05 -0700 Subject: Top Firms Retreat Into Bunker To Ward Off 'Anarchists' In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010823091648.030750c0@idiom.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010823184405.0094b1d0@pop.sprynet.com> At 09:26 AM 8/23/01 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >while a nuclear-proof bunker may be overkill for offsite backup space, >you do need a certain level of security and reliable power Also the bunkers have excellent ventilation systems and a cool ambient temp. The "3-phase" boxes like that. Might suck to be in an underground bunker if the Halon systems go off, though... From info at giganetstore.com Thu Aug 23 11:33:38 2001 From: info at giganetstore.com (info at giganetstore.com) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:33:38 +0100 Subject: Dmail e Giganetstore.com aconselham... Message-ID: <008763833181781WWWSHOPENS@wwwshopens.giganetstore.com> IDEIAS ÚTEIS E ORIGINAIS ACONSELHA AS SEGUINTES IDEIAS... COMPUTADOR PARA BICICLETA Este fantástico computador para bicicleta permite-lhe saber a velocidade instantânea em km/hora, as velocidades médias e máximas atingidas, e a distância total percorrida. Além disso, tem um relógio digital. Clique aqui! ----- BLOCO DE NOTAS ELECTRÓNICO O bloco de notas electrónico permite, de facto, gravar mensagens para 4 pessoas diferentes. Dispõe de quatro teclas RECORD e PLAY, sobre as quais pode inscrever os nomes dos membros da família, de colegas de trabalho, etc. Clique aqui! ----- 4 CUBOS DE GELO LUMINOSOS Põem-se no congelador e ficam frios como qualquer outro tipo de gelo sintético mas... têm uma particularidade única: iluminam-se! Basta bater-lhes num dos lados para acender uma luzinha interna, e bater-lhe no outro para apagar. Pilhas incluidas (duração de 12h de utilização continua). Clique aqui! ----- ESTAÇÃO BAROMÉTRICA Memoriza os últimos dados meteorológicos locais e analisa as suas variações. E faz ainda mais: tem um visor com engraçadas animações, que lhe permite a leitura instantânea das temperaturas interna e externa, ), da humidade relativa e da tendência da pressão atmosférica, juntamente com as funções de despertador com "snooze" e calendário perpétuo. Clique aqui! Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http://www.giganetstore.com , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5751 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gbroiles at well.com Thu Aug 23 19:40:55 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:40:55 -0700 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108232341.TAA31641@waste.minder.net> References: <200108232046.QAA25952@waste.minder.net> <200108222128.RAA28905@waste.minder.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010823183009.04bdc7b0@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 12:43 AM 8/24/2001 +0100, r.duke at freedom.net wrote: >>What exactly is it that you think is new about the Internet, legally >>speaking? > >I would have thought that new interpretations of things like federal and >state jurisdictions would be needed. Given the arguments over the recent >decision on Yahoo from France, I'd say there are questions to be answered. >Is a company under your jurisdiction as soon as you can see its servers? >Are ISPs carriers, or providers? What about their webservers, which store >and provide, as opposed to simply carrying? > >Tell me if I'm wildly off base - I don't mind, but it seems to me that at >the moment, these issues are not obvious and written in stone. I don't think the answers are obvious or unchanging - but the answers to questions like that about meatspace things related to (relatively) unchanging media or technology aren't obvious or unchanging, either. Really, there aren't a lot of hard-and-fast "answers", because every question's got two sides, and there's always someone who wants things to work differently, because the status quo hurts them and the difference would help them. I don't think the jurisdictional questions are especially different from those raised by postal mail, printed publications, telephones, or fax machines - the big difference I see is one of quantity, not quality, because communicating over great distances in a machine-comprehensible format (well, sort of) allows machines to speed up and automate the communicating process, allowing smaller organizations to piss off more people in more diverse jurisdictions more quickly. But the basic questions about the appropriateness of a court in one place exercising power over people or property some distance away haven't changed at all - and unless there's something really different about one form of communications, I don't see any reason to treat it differently from the rest. Many of the questions currently in the news - including the Napster/copyright and jurisdictional/regulatory arbitrage approaches - were in the news 200 years ago. (See, for example, "Dickens's 1842 Reading Tour: Launching the Copyright Question in Tempestuous Seas" at for a discussion of 200 years' worth of offshore piracy) >Actually, I stand corrected - it's no more than your average technical >training course (Sun, etc). Given that it's something I'd have to pay for, >instead of my employer, it seemed expensive. Things always look more >affordable when you can get your manager to sign them off. As Tim mentioned, they're not really priced for people who are self-educating - the dollar/learning ratio would be a lot better with basic books & periodicals, and the time would be as profitably (or more profitably) spent at low-cost or no-cost events like Cypherpunks meetings, BAWUG meetings, the Mac Crypto conference, and other efforts more focused on peer-to-peer interaction. I have found those high-ticket events to be valuable when I was able to immediately use the information gained in my work - either because the people speaking had a perspective unavailable to me (like one seminar I went to which featured a bunch of people from the Dept of Commmerce/BXA explaining how they interpreted crypto export control regs), or because they saved me many hours of work collecting and interpreting voluminous information into outline/presentation format. But I don't bother with those sorts of things unless I can see how they'll pay for themselves within 60 days or so, either by speeding up existing work or letting me start new projects previously unavailable. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net Thu Aug 23 11:24:13 2001 From: mixmaster at remailer.segfault.net (Anonymous Coredump) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:24:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Airwave Anarchy: The revolution will not be texted Message-ID: <993d2c6cf9328b0053f1562e22197403@remailer.segfault.net> The revolution will not be texted http://www.channel4news.co.uk/home/20010821/4text.ram (It's the last article, check Wed 21st Aug, Special Reports for more details) The Philippines claim they used text messages to help bring down the last government. Their lack of respect for the present government has led to demands controlling the use of text messages - a task Ian Williams discovers is easier said than done -- Channel 4 News ran this story on the SMS craze engulfing the Philippines (oh those crazy Filipinos!) and the uncontrollable rumourmongering(TM) of the new technological generation. Spreading like wildfire from handset to handset, sex scandals about leading party members (including one accused of being chased naked through the Manila Hilton by an angry husband) have caused calls for clampdowns by the afore mentioned. Exaggerated reports of the Pope's demise even brought the Church into the fray, calling for sanity (or "sanity") on the MISinformation Super Highway. "Bob", who was expelled from college for spreading rumours about a teacher, revealed that he sometimes sends upwards of 100 rumours a day (but only when he has a _really bad_ day). He operates using 3 unregistered SIM cards, buys pay-as-you-go credits and spends up to 6 hours a day tapping out messages. Cellphones have been implicated in organising the rallies that brought about the end of the last government, and now the new government is feeling a cold breeze on its testicles... One interviewed government official has called for mandatory ID when you buy phone credits, likening this to "requiring a prescription when you buy Viagra". (Obviously he has his reputation to think of.) This has relevance to those cellphone-mixmasters (WalkMasters? For WalkerPunks?) that were discussed a few weeks ago. What are the chances of coding CypherSaber/RC4 for Java enabled cellphones (and I don't mean for voice data!) and a little forwarding app? We now have a proven market. -- The Pope is dead. Long live the Pope! From mail0721 at 371.net Thu Aug 23 21:07:29 2001 From: mail0721 at 371.net (Contrl Software) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:07:29 Subject: Manuf. Production/Contrl Software For $1,495.00! Message-ID: <200108231331.IAA06400@einstein.ssz.com> (ABE)Job Master, a complete, user friendly Windows based software package, can manage and control your operation from sales quote to shipment. For one week only, Job Master, normally $2,495.00, is on sale for a total price of $1,495.00. In order for you to receive this $1,000.00 savings we must have your order by August 30th. (To reply by E Mail to this message or be removed from our list, Please go to the bottom of this message for an E Mail link. Please do not respond to us by hitting the "Reply" button. Our phone number is also located at the bottom of this message.) Job Master is designed specifically for small to medium sized manufacturers, and costs many thousands of dollars less than any other even remotely comparable software package. Following is a list of features. If you have any questions, would like to discuss the package further, or if you would like to obtain our Web site address for a total walk through of the program, please call me directly at (661) 286-0041. By way of background, we are a software company, which for some years has specialized in the development of custom software, primarily for small to medium sized manufacturers. Job Master is a distillation of over a million and a half dollars of software we have developed to control and manage the production of our manufacturing clients. Job Master contains the following features: 1. QUOTATION MODULE. In this module, quotes are developed, modified, and produced for sending to your client. A history is kept of all quotes for future reference, or modification for other clients. All quotations and revisions are "auto numbered," including versions. The quotes section allows for the entry of parts/processes, and costing of each, including materials, labor, markup, and taxes. Inventory status can be accessed from this section for reference. 2. SALES ORDER. Once a quotation is accepted, the final quotation information can be transformed into a Sales Order for your client's signature on a "point and click" basis. The Sales Order can be modified and re issued if necessary. A history if kept of all Sales Orders for future reference, or modification for other clients. All sales orders and revisions are "auto numbered," including versions. Inventory status can be accessed from this section for reference. 3. CUSTOMER LETTERS can be created from the Quotation and Sales Order sections. 4. SHOP TRAVELER/WORK ORDER. Once a Sales Order is accepted, the sales order information can be transformed into a shop traveler/work order on a "point and click" basis. Each item on the Sales Order becomes a shop traveler/work order, with each step of production of the item then listed on the traveler/work order. Each such traveler/work order is tied back into the Sales Order. The shop traveler/work order allows for the entry of line items, and notes on each line item. The shop traveler/work order contains a "notes" section. The Shop traveler/work order allows for the storing or attachment of drawings to the traveler/work order. The shop traveler/work order also contains a "drop down," from which standard processes can be selected for inclusion on the shop traveler/work order. The shop traveler/work order numbers progress in order of production sequence, and re numbers them if new steps are added. The shop traveler/work order allows for change orders or revisions, a! nd! numbers changes in sequence of he original shop traveler/work order number; i.e., 100, 100-1, 100-2, etc. All shop traveler/work orders and related revisions are retained in memory for future reference. The shop traveler/work order is bar coded for tracking of production step by step, and production of ongoing client status reports. Bar coding includes the ability for an employee to "swipe" their own ID bar code for recording in the system as to who upgraded what step. The shop traveler/work order function also allows for manual update of production status. The shop traveler/work order allows for quality control sign off, and the final production of certifications, either from a "canned" list, or hand typed in on a case by case basis. 5. INVENTORY. The application includes an inventory section, which allows operations to check materials inventory in and out. The inventory section allows for the comparison of inventory received against a P.O., and produces an "overage/underage" report of inventory received as compared against the P.O. The inventory section allows for the setting of minimum (re-order now!) and maximum inventory amounts, and produces reports showing what inventory needs to be ordered, as well as inventory that is at or above the maximum set to have in house. The inventory section also tracks "partially shipped" orders, which are tied in to the shipping function. This section shows how much completed product under a particular order has been actually shipped to a client, and how much remains to be shipped. The balance is adjusted as shipments are made. 6. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE. The application allows operators to produce a Request For Purchase for accounting for any inventory items, which need to be ordered. Inventory items have a drop down of approved vendors for each item. 7. REQUEST FOR BID. The application allows operators to produce a Request For Bid for accounting to send to Vendors for any inventory items, which need to be ordered. Inventory items have a drop down of approved vendors for each item to which Requests For Bid can be sent. 8. INVOICE. The application produces an invoice/invoice detail for all completed items ready to be billed/shipped to clients. 9. PRODUCTION OUTPUT STATUS. The application produces a date range selectable report on how much product, and the value of the product, which was completed during a selected date range. The application also produces a report on how many orders, and the value of those orders, which remain to be completed during a selected date range. 10. The application produces SHIPPING DOCUMENTS as per selected shippers, and produces a PACKING SLIP. 11. The application has a "FIND" FUNCTION in selected sections, allowing for searches by customer name, work order number, etc. 12. The application has "AUTO FILL;" i.e., when an operator starts to type in a name, number, etc. all related information auto fills after the first few letters or numbers are typed in. Job Master is currently being sold in the marketplace for $2,495.00 per package. However, if we receive your order by August 30th, your total price will be $1,495.00 Again, if you have any questions at all, or would like to place your order, please call me on my direct line, (661) 286-0041. Thank you! Mario Chavez Vice President of Sales and Marketing Application Sales, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, To REPLY, if you have questions about our services and wish to respond by E Mail, please click on the E Mail address following and enter "Inquiry" in the subject line. REPLYS please click here: manufsoft99 at yahoo.com To be REMOVED from our mailing list, please click on the E Mail address following and enter "Remove" in the subject line. REMOVES please click here: jbsptrsft5 at yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From r.duke at freedom.net Thu Aug 23 13:48:28 2001 From: r.duke at freedom.net (r.duke at freedom.net) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:48:28 +0100 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money References: <200108222128.RAA28905@waste.minder.net> Message-ID: <200108232046.QAA25952@waste.minder.net> At 18:07 22/08/2001 -0400, dmolnar wrote: >On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 r.duke at freedom.net wrote: > > > the Internet & law? There are a few such groups, I think. I'm pretty sure > > Harvard has > > one. Do things like that only make a difference if you manage to publish > >The Berkman Center for Internet and Society. > >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. I've had a look around, and can't actually find many other similar groups. Mind you, most of the lawyers I've spoken to seem feel that the Internet is nothing new, legally. This leads me to think that lawyers on the whole, are not particularly imaginative or attentive people. >They also have a newsletter, "The Filter," which is sometimes interesting. >This year they started running a 5-day "Internet Law Program of >Instruction," if you happen to have a spare $2500. Oh hurrah. A bargain. >(Tangentially, who attends MIT's 6.87s? and what do they do >with it afterwards? I've received solicitations to attend via mail for the >past couple of years; I suspect because I am an ACM SIGSAC member. >http://web.mit.edu/professional/summer/courses/computer/6.87s.html >If *anyone* could get the material across in 4 days, it would be those two >-- but I'm not sure that this is possible...) Four days for all that? Perhaps it involves time travel. ++rd ________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net From therightdomain2001 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 23 23:48:09 2001 From: therightdomain2001 at yahoo.com (TheRightDomains.com) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:48:09 -0700 Subject: Domain Registration for $15 Message-ID: <200108240648.XAA30493@ecotone.toad.com> Subject: Domain Registration for Just $15 REGISTER .COM, .NET & .ORG NAMES Only $15 per year. REGISTER NOW !!! Go to http://www.TheRightDomains.com * No Hidden Charges * No Restrictions * No Surprises * 3 Easy Steps to Register - FREE Domain Name Search: Lets you obtain information about a domain name owner, look up your competitors and check if a domain is available! - FREE Primary & Secondary DNS: Allows you to register for many domain names without having it route to your existing ISP, which may cost you money and inconvenience when you switch providers! - FREE Domain Parking: Means you can place your domain(s) on our servers free, reserving them for later use! - FREE under Construction Page: Gives you an immediate web presence while you build your web site! Registration has never been easier! Visit http://www.TheRightDomains.com now! ####################################################################### This message is sent in compliance of the new email bill section 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618 and is not intended for residents in the State of WA, NV, CA & VA. If you have received this mailing in error, or do not wish to receive any further mailings about this topic, simply click http://TheRightDomains.com/cgi-bin/remove.pl?email=cypherpunks at toad.com We respect all removal requests. ####################################################################### From darwin at con-digital.co.uk Thu Aug 23 17:50:17 2001 From: darwin at con-digital.co.uk (Con-Digital) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:50:17 -0100 Subject: AD : All On Digital Channels for less than you spend on beer a week :-) Message-ID: All Channel Auto Update Cards ( No Inputting of monthly codes) �25 Modified Originl Cards (The Full Monty) �40 Both are ECM Proof :-) and Include the New ITV Sport Channels From r.duke at freedom.net Thu Aug 23 16:43:08 2001 From: r.duke at freedom.net (r.duke at freedom.net) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:43:08 +0100 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money References: <200108232046.QAA25952@waste.minder.net> <200108222128.RAA28905@waste.minder.net> Message-ID: <200108232341.TAA31641@waste.minder.net> At 15:32 23/08/2001 -0700, you wrote: >At 09:48 PM 8/23/2001 +0100, r.duke at freedom.net wrote: > >>Mind you, most of the lawyers I've spoken to seem feel that the Internet >>is nothing new, legally. This leads me to think that lawyers on the >>whole, are not particularly imaginative or attentive people. > >An alternate explanation might be that our legal tradition goes back, in >some cases, to Roman times, and has already proven flexible and adaptable >enough to encompass whatever flavor-of-the-week technologists are excited >about now. It's not like technological change, in itself, is unheard of. Often true, but new technologies can necessitate new interpretations of laws which were not written well enough to translate smoothly to the newest "flavour or the week" technology. >What exactly is it that you think is new about the Internet, legally speaking? I would have thought that new interpretations of things like federal and state jurisdictions would be needed. Given the arguments over the recent decision on Yahoo from France, I'd say there are questions to be answered. Is a company under your jurisdiction as soon as you can see its servers? Are ISPs carriers, or providers? What about their webservers, which store and provide, as opposed to simply carrying? Tell me if I'm wildly off base - I don't mind, but it seems to me that at the moment, these issues are not obvious and written in stone. >>>They also have a newsletter, "The Filter," which is sometimes interesting. >>>This year they started running a 5-day "Internet Law Program of >>>Instruction," if you happen to have a spare $2500. >> >>Oh hurrah. A bargain. > >That's not bad, as things go, for a week of classes, if they're giving >MCLE credits and have a nice continental breakfast. It's not like the >attendees are expected to pay for this out of their own pockets. Actually, I stand corrected - it's no more than your average technical training course (Sun, etc). Given that it's something I'd have to pay for, instead of my employer, it seemed expensive. Things always look more affordable when you can get your manager to sign them off. ++rd ________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net From Opt_In473475 at aol.com Fri Aug 24 01:01:18 2001 From: Opt_In473475 at aol.com (Opt_In473475 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 01:01:18 Subject: What it takes to Make Money in MLM: Message-ID: <200108240502.BAA16221@rm.lakebrandon.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2342 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Opt_In465467 at aol.com Fri Aug 24 02:36:42 2001 From: Opt_In465467 at aol.com (Opt_In465467 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 02:36:42 Subject: What it takes to Make Money in MLM: Message-ID: <200108240637.CAA17993@rm.lakebrandon.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2340 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 24 05:38:23 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:38:23 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | How Public Should Public Records Be? Message-ID: <3B864ABF.E3A1FACB@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/24/0426229.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Fri Aug 24 10:48:53 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:48:53 -1000 Subject: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <94.18c984f0.28b7db11@aol.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010824074823.00e50ca0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Do you have any idea what the legality of this is? At 12:30 PM 8/24/01 -0400, IHNboy at aol.com wrote: >can you tell me how to make a pipe bomb or any other bomb that can made out >of house hold materials Thanks Alot From pcw2 at flyzone.com Fri Aug 24 05:01:21 2001 From: pcw2 at flyzone.com (Peter Wayner) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:01:21 -0400 Subject: Not black helicopters, but dark green ones Message-ID: <200108241201.FAA11505@swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyKey=64513&category=C From AreaDeDivulgacao at via-rs.net Fri Aug 24 05:04:18 2001 From: AreaDeDivulgacao at via-rs.net ("Espao Vital Virtual" > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5988 bytes Desc: not available URL: From guest at guest.com Thu Aug 23 18:47:43 2001 From: guest at guest.com (=?GB2312?B?zfjVvr2oyeixprnz18rUtL+0v7Syu7PUv/c=?=) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:47:43 +0800 Subject: =?GB2312?B?zfjVvr2oyeixprnz18rUtL+0v7Syu7PUv/c=?= Message-ID: <200209240147.g8O1lso34654@locust.minder.net> ============================================================= 此信若对您不起作用，对不真我们一定打扰您了，请您把他DEL ======================================================================= 中国服务全球专业的域名注册提供商，现推出主机、域名注册优惠服务： “特惠1+1企业上网套餐”是中国服务器网络有限公司为您推出的超值服务， “先服务，后收费！”内容包括： 　　 30M asp cgi,php +ACCESS 数据库,送国际顶级域名一个 250元/年 100M asp cgi,php +ACCESS 数据库,送国际顶级域名一个，只需 350元/年 200N asp cgi,php +ACCESS 数据库,送国际顶级域名一个,只需 600元/年 特惠1+1上网套餐是企业上网，企业商务化的理想选择，现正火爆选购中 快速度申请(请点击）： http://www.cnserver.com/webmaster/eje-form.htm 欢迎访问我司网站进一步了解： http://www.cnserver.net http://www.cnserver.com 联系电话:0592-2516932 QQ:93767793 From mmotyka at lsil.com Fri Aug 24 10:49:57 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:49:57 -0700 Subject: Not black helicopters, but dark green ones ( Off Topic ) Message-ID: <3B8693C5.92F26D40@lsil.com> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyKey=64513&category=C What was she so afraid of? Aerial rape? I was just pissed off when the shitheads would fly over as low as they could. I've seen A10's, helicopters and fighters. They're really annoying when you're trying to cast a fly and enjoy some serene isolation. They should test their shit in Macedonia or Nevada. Next time I'll bring my particle beam weapon and scorch their paint a bit. There are three bases that I know of - Fort Drum, Griffiss Air Base and Plattsburgh Air Base. Fort Drum is busy. The latter two have been shut down but I think there is still some research going on at RADC/Griffiss - ( http://www.beardsley.com/portfolio/military/romelab/rl.html ). They may still fly some stuff out of there to test communications, mapping systems and sensors. I think the runways are still maintained. I've been on some fairly remote lakes up there. Go look for the West Canada Lakes on a map. It's really beautiful and in spite of the acid rain from the polluting midwest ( including Ontario ) there are some excellent brookies around. In other areas you can find muskies, pike, bass, raindows and landlocked salmon. The acidified dead lakes are truly sorry looking. This concludes the Adirondack solo backpacker report. Mike From dbob at semtex.com Fri Aug 24 10:53:18 2001 From: dbob at semtex.com (Dynamite Bob) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:53:18 -0700 Subject: But its for the (dismembered) Chiiildren! Message-ID: <3B86948E.5CC8A6E4@semtex.com> Those wacky anti-choice zealots are testing the 1st amendment boundaries again, this time by showing obscenity to children. Klein and his supporters, who will be displaying 6-foot-high posters of dismembered fetuses Saturday morning on the Harbor Boulevard sidewalk outside Disneyland. http://latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-000068665aug24.column?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange%2Doc%5Fnews From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 24 11:56:56 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:56:56 -0700 Subject: Funny story about Napster and IP Message-ID: <200108241900.f7OJ0Jf03788@slack.lne.com> I heard a funny story from someone on CNBC this morning (the singer in a rock group called "Train"). He was answering a question about how Napster helps and hurts bands. He said that bands just starting out really were helped a lot by Napster, as people downloaded music. Then a band gets to a certain success level and decides it doesn't like this downloading. The funny story was about how someone was printing up and selling "Napster" sweatshirts and t-shirts at concerts. Napster was Not Amused and sued. I guess the word "irony" really isn't in their dictionary. --Tim May From IHNboy at aol.com Fri Aug 24 09:30:09 2001 From: IHNboy at aol.com (IHNboy at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:30:09 EDT Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <94.18c984f0.28b7db11@aol.com> can you tell me how to make a pipe bomb or any other bomb that can made out of house hold materials Thanks Alot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 178 bytes Desc: not available URL: From juicy at melontraffickers.com Fri Aug 24 12:40:45 2001 From: juicy at melontraffickers.com (A. Melon) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:40:45 -0700 Subject: Not black helicopters, but dark green ones ( Off Topic Message-ID: <67cc3209fc4ec483263258333a67583c@melontraffickers.com> Mike wrote -- > > What was she so afraid of? Aerial rape? I was just pissed off when the > shitheads would fly over as low as they could. I've seen A10's, > helicopters and fighters. They're really annoying when you're trying to > cast a fly and enjoy some serene isolation. They should test their shit > in Macedonia or Nevada. Next time I'll bring my particle beam weapon and > scorch their paint a bit. No shit! I was in a canoe once on a very backwoods lake, nobody else within miles -- a fucking F16 came over so low he spun my canoe around almost swamped it. Another time, in another state, a helicopter came into my yard so low he went _around_ my house, not over it, did a power turn in the front yard, and came back around the side of the house again. He was extremely lucky, the only gun I could grab that quick was a .22 pistol. I put 6 rounds into his canopy. He was so close I could see his face clearly. If I'd had my .44 mag, he'd of been one dead asshole. I got a bit nervous afterwards, was wondering if the cops would show up, but then realized there was no way in hell he could report it, he would have lost his pilot's license for that cowboy bullshit. They are required by law to stay 500' minimum above private property. From AppleID at apple.com Fri Aug 24 07:42:30 2001 From: AppleID at apple.com (AppleID at apple.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:42:30 GMT Subject: Your Apple ID Information Message-ID: <200108241442.OAA265206@thing3.corp.apple.com> As you requested, here is your Apple ID information: Apple ID : cypherpunks at toad.com Password : writecode Thank you for your interest in Apple and its products. From putfez at hotmail.com Fri Aug 24 08:11:59 2001 From: putfez at hotmail.com (putfez at hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:11:59 GMT Subject: max payne 4420 Message-ID: <39uh7.51060$Qh2.371386@news11-gui.server.ntli.net> nuykockupolhjvbnynwrubdldsoyiyokcspodlbpvwclrpvzyewtegywzkwedkvmywskuuwfzvcusjti From kinkymailer at list.emailbucks.com Fri Aug 24 15:16:37 2001 From: kinkymailer at list.emailbucks.com (kinkymailer at list.emailbucks.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sorry to see you go. Message-ID: <4410992.998691630694.JavaMail.root@mlserve> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 9537 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arma at mit.edu Fri Aug 24 12:30:56 2001 From: arma at mit.edu (Roger Dingledine) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:30:56 -0400 Subject: CfP: Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2002 Message-ID: Can you pass this on to your (dcsb/etc) lists? Thanks, --Roger ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALL FOR PAPERS WORKSHOP ON PRIVACY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES 2002 Apr 14-15, 2002 San Francisco, CA, USA Workshop web site: http://www.pet2002.org/ Privacy and anonymity are increasingly important in the online world. Corporations and governments are starting to realize their power to track users and their behavior, and restrict the ability to publish or retrieve documents. Approaches to protecting individuals, groups, and even companies and governments from such profiling and censorship have included decentralization, encryption, and distributed trust. Building on the success of the first anonymity and unobservability workshop (LNCS 2009, held in Berkeley in July 2000), this second workshop addresses the design and realization of such anonymity and anti-censorship services for the Internet and other communication networks. We are holding this workshop adjacent to the Twelfth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy (CFP2002) for convenience, but we are not affiliated with that conference. The workshop seeks submissions from academia and industry presenting novel research on all theoretical and practical aspects of privacy technologies, as well as experimental studies of fielded systems. We encourage submissions from other communities such as law and business that present these communities' perspectives on technological issues. We will publish accepted papers in proceedings in the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series. Suggested topics include but are not restricted to: * Efficient realization of privacy services * Techniques for and against traffic analysis * Attacks on anonymity systems * New concepts for anonymity systems * Novel relations of payment mechanisms and anonymity * Models for anonymity and unobservability * Models for threats to privacy * Techniques for censorship resistance * Resource management in anonymous systems * Pseudonyms, linkability, and trust * Policy and human rights -- anonymous systems in practice * Fielded systems and privacy enhancement techniques for existing systems * Frameworks for new systems developers IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline December 10, 2001 Acceptance notification February 11, 2002 Camera-ready copy for preproceedings March 11, 2002 Camera-ready copy for proceedings May 15, 2002 GENERAL CHAIR Adam Shostack, Zero Knowledge Systems (adam at zeroknowledge.com) PROGRAM COMMITTEE John Borking, Dutch Data Protection Authority Lance Cottrell, Anonymizer.com Roger Dingledine, Reputation Technologies (co-chair, arma at mit.edu) Hannes Federrath, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Germany Markus Jakobsson, RSA Laboratories Marit Koehntopp, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection, SH, Germany Andreas Pfitzmann, Dresden University of Technology, Germany Avi Rubin, AT&T Labs - Research Paul Syverson, Naval Research Lab (co-chair, syverson at itd.nrl.navy.mil) Michael Waidner, IBM Zurich Research Lab PAPER SUBMISSIONS Submitted papers must not substantially overlap with papers that have been published or that are simultaneously submitted to a journal or a conference with proceedings. Papers should be at most 15 pages excluding the bibliography and well-marked appendices (using 11-point font and reasonable margins), and at most 20 pages total. Authors are encouraged to follow Springer LNCS format in preparing their submissions. Committee members are not required to read the appendices and the paper should be intelligible without them. The paper should start with the title, names of authors and an abstract. The introduction should give some background and summarize the contributions of the paper at a level appropriate for a non-specialist reader. We will publish accepted papers in proceedings in the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series after the workshop. During the workshop preproceedings will be made available. Final versions are not due until after the workshop, giving the authors the opportunity to revise their papers based on discussions during the meeting. Submissions can be made in Postscript or PDF format. To submit a paper, send a plain ASCII text email to the program chairs (emails: arma at mit.edu, syverson at itd.nrl.navy.mil) containing the title and abstract of the paper, the authors' names, email and postal addresses, phone and fax numbers, and identification of the contact author. To the same message, attach your submission (as a MIME attachment). Papers must be received by December 10, 2001. Notification of acceptance or rejection will be sent to authors no later than February 11, 2002, and authors will have the opportunity to revise for the preproceedings version by March 11, 2002. Submission implies that, if accepted, the author(s) agree to publish in the proceedings and to sign a standard Springer copyright release, and also that an author of the paper will present it at the workshop. Final versions (due after the workshop) need to comply with the instructions for authors made available by Springer. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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 Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From watercoolers at xyone.com Fri Aug 24 08:11:31 2001 From: watercoolers at xyone.com (watercoolers at xyone.com) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:11:31 +0100 Subject: No Obligation Trial! Message-ID: <200108241511.QAA06696@peter.west63rd.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 18101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 24 14:48:51 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:48:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Quantum Computation/Cryptography at Los Alamos Message-ID: Everyone here is perfectly capable of reading my posts and deciding for themselves--why the need for the grand pronouncement? Now that you've told everyone how to think, why not use your filter file and get it over with. These elaborate, drawn-out "thinking man's" variations on the "you poopy head" theme are a complete waste of time. Who would have ever imagined that someone so intelligent and thoughtful could be so petty. ~Faustine. On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 03:17 PM, Faustine wrote: > Los Alamos develops quantum crypto system > By Chappell Brown > Electrical Engineering Times > (08/23/01, 1:06 p.m. EST) > > > LOS ALAMOS, N.M.  Engineers at Los Alamos National Laboratory have > developed what they believe is a practical quantum cryptographic system. > The system features two portable units that can encrypt and decrypt > information transmitted via photons. Experiments have shown that >Faustine is becoming the new Jim Choate, regurgitating old topics, >lecturing us on what she/he/it thinks we don't know, and forwarding >items which were stale years ago. >Clue: This list is not just a dumping ground for anything with the word >"crypto" in it. >Metaclue: get a clue. >ObFaustineWhine/Predictable: "Some of us are Important Researchers, >being paid to sit in our cubicles and surf the Net. Just because we >learned about this list last month does not mean we don't have the >_right_ to forward everything we learn about crypto to this list!" >--Tim May From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 24 15:20:58 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: Tim wrote: On Thursday, August 23, 2001, at 02:22 PM, "Faustine" wrote: > me. But if you're one of the anonymouses who won't sign your name to > insults and baseless accusations? Well, I'd say you'd be better off the > way you are. Just dont expect me to waste time reading it. > Ironically, this comes from one who uses an obvious (but unsigned!) nym. >She/he/it/they criticizes others for "won't sign your name" posts, while >we have no way of knowing who she/he/it/they is/are. Check the headers, anything I say is accountable to "authenticated user a3495". At least this way, people I irritate have a pretty good idea who to bitch back at and where to hold a grudge. Obviously. And if you honestly believe I don't bring any value to the list, filter me. >This entity also claims the list is polluted with pseudonymous No I didn't. > and anonymous posts. >Ironically, I agree. I think you mainly have your bloomers in a bunch because I told your anonymous ass-kiss toady to get a spine. Filter me. ~Faustine. From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 24 16:37:28 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:37:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: CfP: Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2002 (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:46:56 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu, Digital Bearer Settlement List , cryptography at wasabisystems.com, mac-crypto at vmeng.com Subject: CfP: Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2002 --- begin forwarded text From sandfort at mindspring.com Fri Aug 24 18:49:56 2001 From: sandfort at mindspring.com (Sandy Sandfort) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:49:56 -0700 Subject: Quantum Computation/Cryptography at Los Alamos In-Reply-To: <200108250140.VAA31292@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: I am the walrus, coo coo kachoo. John wrote(?): > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks at lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks at lne.com]On > Behalf Of John Young > Sent: 24 August, 2001 21:34 > To: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: Quantum Computation/Cryptography at Los Alamos > > > Faustine, you will not be billed for this, this time: > > A fair number of posters here attempt to speak for those who > cannot communicate coherently, as well as for those who > speak badly, wrongly, misguidely, stupidly, ungrammatically, > and ebonically -- and more lilies than I got the brain to > contain. > > I like those sheep doggie dogs and you will too if you learn > that they know where the master whistling their behavior > keeps the club to the head they bark earnestly to avoid. > > Remember the dogs can keep you from being served as > dinner, and being regularly fleeced aint half bad compared > to having to put up with the master's lonely proclivities. > > It's all about money and the crippling drug of it, forget the > vain parables of reputation deployed to sneakthief your > savings. Anybody tell you how to behave and speak and > think got one thing only on its fevered mind. > > There, for free, one time only. From ravage at ssz.com Fri Aug 24 18:08:28 2001 From: ravage at ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:08:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Redirection server (fwd) Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 1349 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bill.stewart at pobox.com Fri Aug 24 20:23:06 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:23:06 -0700 Subject: Security Against Compelled Disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <20010804013003.B30927@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010824201630.030684d0@idiom.com> I realize this discussion was a couple of weeks ago, but I'm just catching up to it now :-) Ignoring the flamage and the inter-listmanager discussions, if possible, I'd like to address the problem of removing attachments. Removing big attachments is one thing, but there are a number of posters whose mail programs use MIME in ways that are likely to get removed, even if they're just using it for PGP signatures. While I'd prefer to encourage such people not to use formats like that, they *do* happen (especially on the remailer-operators list, where each different sub-version of Mutt seems to use a different format...) Tim May periodically flames the users of attachments, and while I agree that binary attachments are often non-portable and non-readable by many people, there are attachments that are just text with MIMEage headers around it, which are perfectly fine - if your reader can't do anything useful to display it, it *should* be able to show you the raw message body and let you read around the junk, just as you'd probably read around PGP signature headers. Bill At 08:29 AM 08/04/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > You fool. One of the cypherpunks nodes removed the attachment. > >Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if >they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the >contract. > >More over, the size limitations for messages to the CDR's was agreed to be >1M minimum over a year ago. > >Check the archives. > > > Sending attachments to the distributed cypherpunks list when at least > > one node remove them is about as useful as, well, arguing with Choate. From bill.stewart at pobox.com Fri Aug 24 20:56:57 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:56:57 -0700 Subject: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions In-Reply-To: <200108091727.f79HR6510125@slack.lne.com> References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010824203323.02ee7ec0@idiom.com> This discussion has touched on a variety of topics, some of them at cross purposes. If you catch one cop in black ninja gear inside your house, and shoot him, at least in California, you'll probably have legitimate self-defense claims, and if he did yell "Police", well, dead men tell no tales. Shooting a blue-uniformed cop inside your house will be much tougher to get away with, even though it's legally not particularly difficult. But it's extemely unlikely the cops would be doing a legally-authorized black-bag job with just one person - much more likely they'd have two or more, because sneaking into a Mafioso's house alone is dangerous, and as Dr. Evil points out, they're going to try very hard to make sure you're not home. This will probably include knocking on your door under some pretext, because if you *are* home, they'd much rather have you know that they're watching you than that they're trying to sneak in and black-bag your computer. And it'll probably involve having lookouts outside to radio the inside man with a "Cheese it, the Mafia!" warning if you show up at an inopportune time. Of course, if you shoot multiple cops in black ninja gear outside your house, even if they're engaged in a military assault, it does tend to annoy the rest of them leading to unfortunate consequences, even if you're doing so purely in self-defense. At 10:26 AM 08/09/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >(Here in California, several recent cases in Stockton and Bakersfield >where they got the wrong house. When the confused occupant moved in a way >they didn't like, they shot him dead. "Oops." >No murder charges filed against the SWAT members.) I have had cops break into my house, looking for a neighbor who had used my apartment number on his car registration instead of his, and been the confused occupant acting in a way they didn't expect, but they weren't a SWAT team; it was a 6am service of an arrest warrant, with three cops, and they'd been pounding on the door for about 10 minutes yelling for "Anthony"; I had gotten to bed at 3am, and when enough of the racket got through to wake me up, I initially assumed it was the neighbor's friends or non-friends looking for him, though the word "Police" got used enough I figured I had to go see what was up and staggered down the stairs. Cop was standing in my front hall, and I yelled at him to close the door so the cats wouldn't get out enough times to back him outside before we resolved the other issues. Unfortunately, I was still asleep enough that I didn't check out the warrant, so I don't know if he's a Home Invasion Robber or something else dangerous I should know to avoid, or just was being busted for failing to appear for a DUI charge which is no threat to me.... From jya at pipeline.com Fri Aug 24 21:33:40 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:33:40 -0700 Subject: Quantum Computation/Cryptography at Los Alamos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108250140.VAA31292@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Faustine, you will not be billed for this, this time: A fair number of posters here attempt to speak for those who cannot communicate coherently, as well as for those who speak badly, wrongly, misguidely, stupidly, ungrammatically, and ebonically -- and more lilies than I got the brain to contain. I like those sheep doggie dogs and you will too if you learn that they know where the master whistling their behavior keeps the club to the head they bark earnestly to avoid. Remember the dogs can keep you from being served as dinner, and being regularly fleeced aint half bad compared to having to put up with the master's lonely proclivities. It's all about money and the crippling drug of it, forget the vain parables of reputation deployed to sneakthief your savings. Anybody tell you how to behave and speak and think got one thing only on its fevered mind. There, for free, one time only. From 1812overturre at centuryinter.net Fri Aug 24 22:10:44 2001 From: 1812overturre at centuryinter.net (Mousekinn) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:10:44 Subject: Be Debt Free for 2002. Message-ID: <200108250231.VAA18606@einstein.ssz.com> Please read before you delete. This is not aspam. Truly you will become debt free. You have nothing to lose andeverything to gain.All our mailings are sent complying to the proposed United StatesFederal requirements for commercial e-mail: Section 301 Paragraph (a)(2)(C) ofS.618. Please see the bottom of this message for further information andremoval instructions.Dear Friend,AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV:Make over a half million dollars ($500,000+)every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars - one time! THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET! ====================================================== BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!! Before you say "Bull", please read the following. This is the letter youhave been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of thisletter on the internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted anentire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if itreally can make people money. Also...***Does this Headline Look familiar??***PARENTS OF 15 YEAR OLD FIND $71,000 CASH HIDDEN IN CLOSET! Of course it does. This is one of the stories they featured on that newsreport. This is also the same program that he was using. Moving On...This show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are "absolutely no lawsprohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simpleinstructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocketcost."DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER !!! This is what one participant had to say: "I am thankful for this profitable opportunity. I had seen this programmany times before, but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined justto see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. Tomy astonishment, I received a total of $610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with moneystill coming in." PamHedland, Fort Lee, NJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~Here is another testimonial: "This program has been around for a long time and I never believed init. But one day when I received this again in the mail, I decided to gamble my$25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa. 3 weeks later the moneystarted to come in. First month I only made a total of $240.00 but the next 2months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months byre-entering the program, I have made over $710,000 and I am playing it again. Thekey to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and not changeanything."More testimonials later but first, ****** PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE ****** $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following. THEN READ IT AGAIN AND AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE!!! INSTRUCTIONS:**** Order all 5 reports shown on the list below.**** For each report, send: 1. $5 CASH 2. THE NAME AND NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING 3. YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. **** When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computerand resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5 = $25.**** Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the 5reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they willbe accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order themfrom you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in casesomething happens to your computer.**** IMPORTANT - DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listednext to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other thanwhat is instructed below in steps 1 through 6 or you will lose out on a majorityof your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see howit does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will NOT work!!! So, DO NOT try to change anythingother than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you.Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1. After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement andREMOVE the name and address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is not doubt counting their fortune.2. Move the name and address in REPORT # 4 to REPORT # 5.3. Move the name and address in REPORT # 3 to REPORT # 4.4. Move the name and address in REPORT # 2 to REPORT # 3..5. Move the name and address in REPORT # 1 to REPORT #2.6. Insert YOUR name and address in the REPORT # 1 position.PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name and address ACCURATELY! ============================================================Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it onyour computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as well just in case you lose any data.To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing informationwhich includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands offree classified ads and much more.There are 2 primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY============================================================Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, andwe will assume you and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each. Let'salso assume that the mailing receives only a 0.2% response (the responsecould be much better but let's just say it is only 0.2%. Also, many peoplewill send out thousands of e-mails instead of only 5,000 each.)Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails. With a0.2% response, that is only 10 orders for Report # 1. Those 10 peopleresponded by sending out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000. Out of those50,000 e-mails, only 0.2% responded with orders. That equals 100 peopleresponding and ordering Report # 2. Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails eachfor a total of 500,000 emails. The 0.2% response to that is 1,000 orders forReport # 3. Those 1,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5million e-mails sent out. The 0.2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report# 4. Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails. The 0.2% response to that is 100,000 orders forReport # 5.THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIME $5 EACH = $500,000.00 (One-half milliondollars.)Your total income in this example is:1. $50 +2. $500 +3. $5,000 + 4. $50,000 +5. $500,000 + Grand Total + $555,550.00NUMBERS DO NOT LIE. GET A PENCIL AND PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORSE POSSIBLE RESPONSE. NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY!!!-------------------------------------------------------------REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDER OUT OF THE 5,000 YOU MAILED TO. Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even one fourth of those people who respondedmailed 100,000 e-mails each or more. There are over 250 million people on theinternet worldwide and counting. Believe me, many people will do just that, andmore! METHOD # 2: BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET===========================================================Adv ertising on the net is very inexpensive and there are hundreds ofFREE places to advertise. Placing a lot of free ads on the internet willeasily get a large response. We strongly suggest you start with METHOD # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along.For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered. That's it. Always provide same day service on all reports. This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address onit, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive thereport. **********AVAILABLE REPORTS**********ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER AND NAME ONLY.Notes: Always send $5 cash (U.S. CURRENCY) for each Report. Checks NOT accepted. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper, writethe NUMBER & NAME of the Report you are ordering along with YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address.PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: ====================================================REPORT # 1: "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on theInternet."ORDER REPORT # 1 FROM:Gillian Ernsberger,1812 E.Townline-16 Rd, Pinconning, MI 48650.USADon't forget to provide your e-mail address to receive the reports! ====================================================REPORT # 2: "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on theInternet"ORDER REPORT # 2 FROM:Shane Black 4331 E.Baseline rd, suite B-105, PMB435. Gilbert, Arizona. 85234- 2961USA====================================================REPORT # 3: "The Secrets of Multi-Level Marketing on the Internet"ORDER REPORT # 3 FROM:SMJPO Box 8936Mesa, AZ. 85213- 8936USA====================================================REPORT # 4: "How to Become a Millionaire Utilizing the Power of Multi-Level Marketing and the Internet"ORDER REPORT # 4 FROM:M.Miller3089-C Clairemont Drive #343San Diego, CA. 92117USA====================================================REPORT # 5: "How to Send 1,000,000 E-mails for FREE"ORDER REPORT # 5 FROM:KC3439 NE Sandy Blvd #379Portland, Oregon 97232USA======================================================There are currently more than 250,000,000 people online worldwide!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$$$$Follow these guidelines to create your success:If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report # 1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do.After you receive 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for Report # 2. If you did not, continue advertising or sending e- mails until you do.Once you have receiving 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a different report. You canKEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business!!! --------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRM:You have just received information that can give you financial freedomfor the rest of your life, with NO RISK and JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT. You can make more money in the next few weeks and months than you have ever imagined.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 report after you have put your name and address in Report # 1 and move others to # 2...# 5 as instructed above. One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails andyour 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 ideas, information, materials andopportunity to become financially independent. IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! *************** MORE TESTIMONIALS ***************My name it Mitchell. My wife, Jody and I live in Chicago. I am an accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving "junk mail". I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and a few days later she jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work. Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses. Within the next 45 days she had received a total of $147,200.00 all cash! I was shocked. I have joined Jody in her "hobby". Mitchell Wolf, Chicago, Illinois---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, Idecided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way Iwouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. I was surprised when I found my medium size post office box crammed with orders. I made $319,210.00 in the first 12 weeks. The nice thing about this deal isthat it does not matter where people live. There simply isn't a betterinvestment with a faster return." Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wonderedif I should have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact toget another copy, so I had to wait until I was e- mailed again by someoneelse... 11 months passed and then it luckily came again ... I did not delete isone! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks." Susan De Suza, New York, NY-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money withlittle cost to you. I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 daysthe money started to come in. My first month I made $20,560.00 and by the end of the third month my total cash count was $362,840.00. Life is beautiful, thanks to the Internet." Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON "YOUR" ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM!!! If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer protection, Washington, D.C.Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th Congress, this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. Make over a half million dollars ($500,000+) every 4 to 5 months from your home for an invest of only $25 U.S. Dollars - one time! It's there for you - go for it!Good Luck!-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=REMOVE Instructions=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- **************************************************************Do not reply to this message -To be removed from future mailings:mail to remove1549 @xyz002.com**************************************************************-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =More Info=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- **************************************************************To receive more information or to subscribe to Periodic mailings with offers like this...mail to reply1549 @xyz002.com**************************************************************<-*->mW3$F=d[83iz* 09FImvQQi$F38F308SImvmvPmvmvi=[8d3s?80,szImv6WA[NFAdiz=80,szImv%fHi|s=3 |F30,szImv2mWvW6qi?sAS98F30d3308F3Imv2%i$s3zd[S0,szImv2Hv%i@ [zs0,szImvP3szzR[ASiF*,[3F0,szImfm6vfiOsS0,sz0OAImf%ZQQi z*08F3Imfud=9dSSd=i|As9 [R08F3Im2Z-sFi@[zs0,sz03?Im2QmvqmiAFS[dOSFzF==d [808F3Im2%dO8i [,sz8F30,szIm2f6F9?dA9=i$szF0,szIm2Pd==$sSFiF*,[3F0,szIm2O[A9=iz=80,szImqQQizd [S0,szImqQQRsn=F_iF*, [3F0,szImqQ6SiAdzOSFA0AnImqQW2Wi,sz=F308F3Imqm6sNFA3nAFi,F83nAR [83FA08F3Imq%i?sAS9s8S[8F09FImq2i$s3zd[S0,szImqHQ% Wmi=@R3FS0,szImqHq2iuR|sSR0_[Imq3[SS[9[Fin=d08F3ImHQQ6,sz| 3s8iOOsR0,szImHmmq6i[zd[S0AnImH%HHQ=9i=3n9F830FnA08SImHvWvQQiF*, [3F0,szImHvvi|sA3ndSzd[S0|3ImHfm6i,F83nAR[83FA08F3ImHffqqmfi3FSF_s8[,dzsN[= 3dA0,sz0|FImH2%=,[Siz=80,sz<-*-> From pzakas at toucancapital.com Fri Aug 24 19:24:19 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:24:19 -0400 Subject: Top Firms Retreat Into Bunker To Ward Off 'Anarchists' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c12d0d$0c05dc60$0300a8c0@chimera19> The most sophisticated bunkers in the world are still vulnerable to the average utility digging crew. phillip > Matthew Gaylor > From: "Moon Kat" > TOP FIRMS RETREAT INTO BUNKER TO WARD OFF 'ANARCHISTS' > > "Some of Britain's biggest companies are running their Internet > operations on systems installed in a 300ft-deep nuclear blast-proof > bunker to protect customers from violent anti-capitalist campaigners. From successfulnews at bart.nl Sat Aug 25 07:42:08 2001 From: successfulnews at bart.nl (TONY) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 07:42:08 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108251938328.SM01028@html> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 12062 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 08:39:06 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:39:06 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <20010825104140.D12511@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108251541.f7PFfGf07237@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 07:41 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:05:04PM -0400, Faustine wrote: >> Great points. If you're looking to make a difference re: cypherpunk >> and pro- >> libertarian issues and have a scientific and practical streak, why not >> get >> an advanced degree in policy analysis instead? You get a rock-solid >> grounding in a number of critical disciplines, and put yourself in a >> position to seriously affect policy on the broadest possible stage. >> Not for > > Alas, the best policy analysts I've seen are lawyers. Folks in DC, at > least, > look down at people who got an easier "policy analysis" degree as people > who couldn't or didn't want to go to law school. > And then there are those who care so much about others (whales, persyns of color, and other living things) that they get a "History of Consciousness" degree from here at UC Santa Cruz. Where else could they study under unreconstructed communists like Bettina Aptheker (daughter of militant communist Herbert Aptheker) and Angela Davis? And they get to remain in their beloved Santa Cruz afterwards, waittressing at Zachary's! I can't honestly say that I wish all of the lawyer wannabees here on the list good luck, as I think lawyers generally create entropy and inefficiency, no matter their intentions. But at least they ought to think long and hard about their career path and which schools will help them the most. --TIm May From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 09:02:06 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 09:02:06 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <20010825105958.G12511@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108251604.f7PG4Ff07433@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 07:59 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:14:04PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> Meanwhile, don't expect to see me at the next CFP conference! Plenty >> of >> comped scribblers, though. > > CFP is in SF next year, so you may want to stop by. > > As for "comped scribblers," I am one. But look at it from a > journalist's perspective: We may attend two conferences a week, say at > $1,500/per. Rough estimates, then, would be over $150,000 a year, more > than most journalists make. > > Paying that much in conference fees is not feasible, and conference > organizers generally understand this and let us in free (we may pay for > meals) in exchange for publicity. > First, $1500 per conference sounds way too high, even by today's inflated standards. Second, I can't believe there are 100 such conferences a year! If you are going to 2 conferences per week for most of a year, you're going to way too many conferences! Third, even scaling back the prices and numbers, I wasn't suggesting that no journalist be comped. Just that comping nearly a third or more of all attendees says something is out of whack. Fourth, as for publicity, I don't recall seeing hundreds of articles about the last CFP I attended ('97, I think). And I know for a fact that a significant fraction of all the attendees (several hundred) were comped. Except for a handful of articles by the Usual Suspects, the organizers were getting a small bang for their buck. Conferences are subject to market forces. If organizers want to comp a lot of journalists and charge amounts that only corporate law firms will be willing to pay for (probably charging-back some of their clients), then their model may be working. I see this in another conference I used to attend regularly (but won't name, because search engines may cause my critique to get back to the organizers, who may stop inviting me...and I haven't given up on it completely yet). This conference started out in the 80s being affordable, sort of like science fiction cons used to be. Fairly rustic accommodations, fairly basic meals. Then they had the chance to invite some of the Big Luminaries: Esther Dyson, John Perry Barlow, Mitch Kapor, etc. They upgraded the venue, raised the rates, and sought corporate sponsorship. So the rates rose. (And the Luminaries are, to my mind, not worth listening to. I really have gotten fed up hearing Esther Dyson flit in to a conference, shmooze in the equivalent of the green room with other Luminaries, give a canned speech about cyber rights or computing in Russia, and then flit out to her next appearance. For this I am expected to pay exhorbitant conference fees? No thanks.) CFP could have been a conference where tech types mingled with policy types. Alas, very few of the Cypherpunks meeting folks ever go to the CFPs, even when they're held locally to the Bay Area. Mostly lawyers and spooks. But there are more than market forces at work, too. For one thing, the tax laws don't allow folks like me to deduct our attendance fees in the same way law firms (and even general corporations) can. This is wrong. I'll probably attend the next CFP the way I attended the very first one...by sitting in the comfortable chairs in the lobby area. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 09:38:34 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 09:38:34 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <20010825105958.G12511@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108251640.f7PGegf07654@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 07:59 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > As for "comped scribblers," I am one. But look at it from a > journalist's perspective: We may attend two conferences a week, say at > $1,500/per. Rough estimates, then, would be over $150,000 a year, more > than most journalists make. > > Paying that much in conference fees is not feasible, and conference > organizers generally understand this and let us in free (we may pay for > meals) in exchange for publicity. > A couple of more words on this issue: Granted, the conference gets publicity. But, presumably, the magazine or other outlet gets readers and viewers. A two-way street, right? "Wired" and "Wired News" are businesses. If covering CFP is good business, paying their costs to attend sounds like a sound business decision. Honestly speaking, I see a lot more economic justification for Terra-Lycos to pay $600 (or whatever) for Declan's registration fees, and then count these as business costs, than I see economic justification for Tim May, say, to pay $600 to attend (and not be able to deduct it in any way). Which is why conferences like CFP mostly end up with a predictable mix of lawyers, government officials (probably comped to attend, though I don't know this), and journalists. And which is why the panels end up with a lot of journalists pontificating to each other. (Based on the two CFPs I attended...) Frankly, I don't understand why CFP doesn't just accept the inevitable and move the conference to Washington, D.C. permanently. --Tim May From vze2q34d at verizon.net Sat Aug 25 07:45:00 2001 From: vze2q34d at verizon.net (Ron Johnson) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 09:45:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Money By PayPal ( Wall Street Journal And National News Programs have aired this, IT WORKS!!! Message-ID: <200108251445.JAA8692872@smtp7vepub.verizon.net> Subj: Date: 8/23/2001 8:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: sdchristensen at charter.net (Steve Christensen) To: jevangelista2002 at globeclubs.com, jewels at moneygames.cr, jewelspage2000 at yahoo.com, jface78 @hotmail.com, jfcbettertravel at aol.com, jferna2377 at aol.com, jflemin520 at earthlink.net, jflemin520 at eartlink.net, jfriese at e-com-network.de, jfrost77 at hotmail.com, jfstms at yahoo.com, jg at home.com, jg at hotmail.com, jg at yahoo.com, jg50 at ateam.every1.net, jgaml at hotmail.com, jgooch77 at bellsouth.net, jgood at submitworld.com, jgrahamjr at wi.rr.com, jgrant at hotmail.com, jgrantn at hotmail.com, jgschnepp at netscape.net, jgwms at worldsubmitter.com, jh at jeurosport.com, jh at themail.com, jh32087742 at 163.com, jh6627 at nmail.zyworld.com, jhansjr at hotmail.com, jharden3 at submitworld.com, jharduby at bellsouth.net, jhayllar at lycos.co.uk, jhead at go2click.com, jhemiman01 at aol.com, jhemiman01 at zwallet.com, jhfm at wz.zj.cn, jhlcustom at hotmail.com, jhnsds at safedsdcon2000.dk, jhorsekrazius at yahoo.com, jhorsekrazy at info.trafficwave.net, jhovey at postmark.net, jhr1844 at hotmail.com, jhuber2515 at yahoo.com, jhujaejytnie at yahoo.com, jiajian at huang.com.cn, jiajun at china.com, jiangyabing at 21cn.com, jianming at public.ndptt.fj.cn, jiasdfll at ginzoasdfscloset.com, jihad1421 at hotmail.com, jill at submitworld.com, jillianpi at aol.com, jilltaylor4476 at yahoo.co, jiva19 at aol.com THIS IS NOT SPAM! THIS IS NOT SPAM! YOu can make thousands off PayPal! Dear Friend: RE: About Your PayPal Account, in response to your message. This is something that I wouldn't normally even look at, except that I read an article in the Wall Street Journal on 6/16/2001 about PayPal and x.com. There have been other articles written about these companies in other well recognized journals. Because I'm a member of PayPal,I knew that this was real and would work. If you need to make a few thousand dollars REALLY FAST, then please take a moment to read this simple program I'm sharing with you. THIS IS THE FASTEST, EASIEST PROGRAM YOU WILL EVER DO!!! Complete it in one hour and you will never forget the day you first received it!!! Oh! Did I say FAST? "The speed of the Internet-type fast." The Newsletter and all payments are made on the Internet by E-Mail. NEED PROOF? Here are just two testimonials from individuals who decided to invest nothing more than a little of their time. Testimonials from: ********************************************** Tony Stevens, Vandenberg AFB, CA: Hey! I got your e-mail! YOU ROCK! I sent it to all of our frat = brothers.....and while I haven't seen my $20 grand yet, I'm up to = $8,285. Hook me up when you run this program again. Mary Gathers, Columbia, SC: Hey cuz! This is Mary. I only have one thing to say to you... OH MY GOD! = I sent 20 e-mails out like you said and went on vacation. When I got = back, my account was up to over $12,000! I owe you! GETTING STARTED. The very first thing you need to do is go to PayPal and sign up. It takes two minutes and PayPal will deposit $5.00 in your account. That makes this program FREE! Here's the link: https://www.paypal.com/refer/pal=jiva19 at aol.com BE SURE TO SIGN UP FOR A PREMIER ACCOUNT! OR YOU'LL BE LIMITED TO $100 DOLLARS ONLY!!! YOU WILL MAKE MUCH MORE THAN THIS!!! Then...... E-Mail the $5.00 from your PayPal account to the FIRST name on the list (#1) along with a little note like "Please add me to your mailing list." BE PREPARED TO GET EXCITED.... YOU WON'T BE DISAPPOINTED!!! Read the following and you will agree this is a very exciting opportunity. ARE YOU IN NEED OF MONEY RIGHT NOW? HOW DOES $20,000 IN TWO WEEKS SOUND? Don't laugh! Try this for a change while you wait for the others to start working. One hour of work to get started and no mailing lists! This service is 100% legal (refer to US Postal and Lottery Laws, Title 18, Section 1302 and 1341, or Title 18, Section 3005 in the US code, also in the code of Federal Regulations, Volume 16, Sections 255 and 436, which state a product or service must be exchanged for money received). Here's How It Works. Unlike many other programs, this THREE LEVEL PROGRAM is more realistic and much, much faster. because it is so easy, the response rate for this program is VERY HIGH VERY FAST -- Internet E-Mail FAST -- and you will see results in two weeks or less! JUST IN TIME FOR NEXT MONTHS BILLS! You only mail out 20 copies (not 200 or more as in other programs). You should also send them to people who send their programs, because they know these programs work and they are already believers in the system! Besides, this program is MUCH, MUCH FASTER and has a HIGHER RESPONSE RATE! Even if you are already in a program, stay with it, but do yourself a favor and DO THIS ONE as well. START RIGHT NOW! It's simple and takes NO INVESTMENT! It will pay off long before others letters even begin to trickle in! Just give ONE person a $5.00 gift (REMEMBER THOUGH, this $5.00 is $5.00 YOU GOT FREE WHEN YOU SIGNED UP FOR THE PayPal account). That's all! If you already have a PayPal account and do not receive their $5.00 gift, feel free out of the goodness of your HEART to donate a $5,00 GIFT to the person in the number 1 spot for him to have your name added to the advertisement list. So anyone's MAXIMUM INVESTMENT IS $5.00. Follow the simple instructions and in two weeks you will have $20,000 in your bank account! Because of the ZERO INVESTMENT, SPEED, and HIGH PROFIT POTENTIAL, this program has a VERY HIGH RESPONSE RATE! FROM just ONE $5.00 bill that you get FREE at PayPal!!! Follow These Simple Instructions: E-Mail the $5.00 from your Paypal account to the FIRST name on the list (#1) along with a note saying "add me to your mailing list". Only the first person on the list gets your name and five dollar gift. Edit only the list, removing the FIRST (#1) NAME FROM THE LIST. Move the other two names UP and ADD YOUR NAME to the list in the THIRD (#3) position. Don't try to add your name in the first place in order to earn money fast! If you do that, you will ONLY reach people you sent e-mail to and then your name will be immediately removed from the first place and you can't reach more people! But if you add our name on the 3rd place, there will be tons of people receiving E-Mails with your name first later!!! NOTE: Do not forget to replace the PayPal referring URL in the body of the letter with your own PayPal referring URL. Send out 20 copies of this letter. ALSO NOTE: By sending this letter and the payment via E-MAIL, the response time is much faster... ELECTRONIC TRANSFER INTERNET FAST! CONSIDER THIS, MILLIONS of people surf the Internet everyday, all day, all over the world! Here are the 3 people to start with. Sign up and send $5.00 to the first person!!! 1. webmaster at setyournet.com 2. stevec at infowest.com 3. jiva19 at aol.com Fifty thousand new people get on the Internet every month! An excellent source of names is the people who send you other programs and the names listed on the letter they send you. Your contact source is UNLIMITED! It boggles my mind to think of all the possibilities! Mail, or should I say E-mail, your letter and payment TODAY! It's so easy. One hour of your time, THAT'S IT! To send your newsletter by e-mail, copy this ENTIRE PAGE and paste it in the message of your E-Mail TO DO THIS: 1. Go to "edit" and "select all" 2. Go to "edit" and select "copy" 3. Start (compose) a new E-Mail message (make sure it's PLAIN TEXT so everyone can view it!) 4. Fill in your Address and Subject Box 5. Go to "edit" and "paste" (Then you can format it anyway you want!) Now you can edit the addresses with ease. Delete the top name, adding your name and address to the bottom of the list, then simply changing the numbers. Remember, YOUR NAME goes on the BOTTOM and move the other 2 names up. But DO NOT forget to send $5.00 by PayPal (along with your note) to the TOP E-MAIL address before deleting it! NOTE: Be sure to replace the PayPal referring URL in this e-mail of the letter with your own PayPal referring URL. THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO DO. When your name reaches the first position in a few days, it will be your turn to collect your MONEY! The money will be sent to you by 2,000 to 4,000 people like yourself, who are willing to invest one hour to receive $20,000 in cash! That's all! There will be a total of $20,000 in $5.00 bills in your mailbox (account)in two weeks. $20,000 for one hour's work! This is real money that you can spend on anything you wish! Just deposit it to your own bank account or spend it directly from your PayPal account!!! It's that easy!!! I think it's WORTH IT, don't you? GO AHEAD--- TRY IT!!! EVEN IF YOU MAKE JUST 3 OR 4 THOUSAND, WOULDN'T THAT BE NICE? IF YOU TRY IT, IT WILL PAY! CAN YOU DO IT AGAIN? OF COURSE YOU CAN---this plan is structured for everyone to send only 20 letters each. However, you are certainly not limited to 20. Mail out as many as you want. Every 20 letters you send has a return of $20,000 or more. If you can E-MAIL forty, sixty, eighty, or whatever, GO FOR IT! THE MORE YOU PUT INTO IT THE MORE YOU GET OUT OF IT! Each time you run this program, just follow steps 1 through 3 and everyone on your gift list benefits! Simple enough? You bet it is! Besides, there are no mailing lists to buy (and wait for), and trips to the printer or copier, and you can do it again and again with your regular groups or gift givers, or start up a new group. Be SURE and PAY the first person on the list. This is proof that you paid to get put on the list which is the service rendered to make all this legal!!! = Why not? It beats working! Each time you receive an MLM offer, respond with this letter! Your name will climb to the number one position at dizzying rates. Follow the simple instructions, and above all, PLEASE PLAY FAIR. That's the key to this program's success. Your name must run the full gamut on the list to produce the end results. Sneaking your name higher up on the list WILL NOT produce the results you think, and it only cheats the other people who have worked hard and have earned the right to be there. So please, play by the rules and the $$$ will come to you! $$$ E-MAIL YOUR LETTERS OUT TODAY! Together we will prosper! GOOD LUCK $$$ You are probably skeptical of this, especially with all the different programs out there on the web, but if you don't try this you will never know. That's the way I felt. I've been watching this type of program for years and this is about as easy and fast as you can get it and it can even be free to try now with PayPal, no stamps, no envelopes, no copies to be made - just a little effort and faith!!! This program = really "Kept It Short and Simple"! OH BY THE WAY....each time someone signs up with your link under your name... you also make $5.00 from PayPal... so they pay to open up the account but they also pay you when someone signs up from being referred by you. AWESOME! Let's all make some serious money $$$$$$ GO TO THIS REFERRAL SITE TO SIGN UP FOR PAYPAL https://www.paypal.com/refer/pal=jiva19 at aol.com or if you are already signed then go to your paypal account and send $5 to the first name on the list. And please just play by the rules, this doesn't cost anything but your time and if everyone plays fair everyone WINS. GOOD LUCK and THANKS !!!!! PS: This message is sent in reply to your message. It is an auto response. It is not Spam and it DOES WORK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- If you no longer want to get these e-mails, click the URL below to unsubscribe. http://setyournet.com/cgi-bin/mail/mailmachine.cgi?stevec at infowest.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xd04.mx.aol.com (rly-xd04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.169]) by air-xd05.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILINXD53-0823203149; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:31:49 -0400 Received: from dc-mx01.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx01.cluster0.hsacorp.net [209.225.8.11]) by rly-xd04.mx.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXD42-0823203120; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:31:20 -0400 Received: from [24.241.177.77] (HELO dad) by dc-mx01.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.6) with SMTP id 20907284; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:38:02 -0400 Message-ID: <00c801c12c34$7e85bd20$0300a8c0 at dad> From: "Steve Christensen" To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:33:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C12C02.2CEA64C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 07:18:38 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:18:38 -0400 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: ; from decoy@iki.fi on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 02:10:18PM +0300 References: <200108170506.f7H56WC19551@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825101838.A12511@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 02:10:18PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > True. Yet harm gives you cause for Common Law action, no? No. If I start a bakery that competes with yours and takes customers from yours, I have "harmed" you. Yet this is something that society encourages. If I successfully woo your girlfriend/boyfriend, I have "harmed" you. Yet this is seen as acceptable, or at least not illegal, behavior. What is "harmful" is not necessarily illegal or tortuous. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 07:22:51 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:22:51 -0400 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: <200108211530.f7LFUjf18630@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 08:28:27AM -0700 References: <200108211530.f7LFUjf18630@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825102251.B12511@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 08:28:27AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Coercion means men with guns threatening people with imprisonment for > displaying certain images, for example. Coercion is when Congress passes > the Protection of the Children Act of 2002 and requires all ISPs to > provide content-filtering labels and tools. As I suspect Tim knows, this is already the case in Texas: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-318042.html?tag=rltdnws -Declan From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 10:26:47 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:26:47 -0700 Subject: ...and don't cc: individuals! In-Reply-To: <200108251704.NAA15342@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108251729.f7PHT1f08103@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 12:56 PM, someone wrote: > I'd appreciate your not addressing mail to me concerning > Jim Bell, though that may be due to the way your mailer > is set up to respond to cpunk mail. > > I got subpoenaed to the grand jury and trial because > Jim Bell's responses to my messages to cpunks were > addressed to me and cc'ed to cpunks, just as yours ..... > And I will ask again to all readers in the universe: do not send > me private e-mail about Jim Bell, CJ, or anybody likely to be a > target of the SOBs working cybercrime-rich territory. Post > your stuff to a public forum, and do not cc me. > And I urge people to spend the extra 10 seconds it takes to edit out all addresses except the CDR node they are sending their message to. (I have to do this with my mailer, and I nearly always manage to edit out all of the various cc: and extraneous To: entries. Sometimes in haste I just hit "Reply" and forget to edit the fields. Mostly I do.) The reasons for this are two-fold, not even counting "someone's" valid point about ignorami claiming "direct communication": 1) Everyone is getting the list, right? Except for rare cases when someone not subscribed to the list is copied as a courtesy, there is no need for them to receive a separate mailed copy and a mail-exploder copy. ("Robb, we may have another problem brewing on the Thought Criminal list...that smart-ass May just used the word "exploder" in a message.") 2) Editing out the extraneous cc:s helps to stop _others_ from further proliferating extra copies. (I've seen messages to Cypherpunks with half a dozen cc: entries, all to otherwise-subscribed members.) To paraphrase one of the Orwellian barnyard animals : "Two copies bad." My mailer allows me to just type "cy" in the To: field and it auto-fills with its best guess of what the address is. It also shows, after a delay, a pop-up of other possible addresses. Or cut-and-paste is easy. (I send traffic out to cypherpunks at lne.com, even if it arrives via another node. So I like the auto-fill more than cutting-and-pasting.) Others may have macros which auto-type an address easily. Or even macros and scripts which discard all non-cypherpunks addresses from a reply. In any case, it only takes about 10-20 seconds, tops. --Tim May From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 07:35:23 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:35:23 -0400 Subject: lawyerpunks-in-training...? In-Reply-To: ; from sfurlong@acmenet.net on Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 07:00:57AM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20010825103523.C12511@cluebot.com> On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 07:00:57AM -0500, Steve Furlong wrote: > things I could do with a law degree, such as beat up on lawyers who were beating up on free > software projects. The program takes four years of "part time" study if you wish to take the > bar afterward, or three years if you just want a JD. Steve: An interesting project, and I wish you well. You may be in a good position to respond to nastygrams that lawyers beating up on free software projects send. But it strikes me that if you want to get involved in even a semi-serious legal defense, it may be more than you can afford pro bono unless you're at a large law firm. Even the PETA case (which I wrote about today for Wired) involves over $300K in legal fees and misc. expenses, and that was just over a domain name. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 07:41:40 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:41:40 -0400 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: ; from a3495@cotse.com on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:05:04PM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20010825104140.D12511@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:05:04PM -0400, Faustine wrote: > Great points. If you're looking to make a difference re: cypherpunk and pro- > libertarian issues and have a scientific and practical streak, why not get > an advanced degree in policy analysis instead? You get a rock-solid > grounding in a number of critical disciplines, and put yourself in a > position to seriously affect policy on the broadest possible stage. Not for Alas, the best policy analysts I've seen are lawyers. Folks in DC, at least, look down at people who got an easier "policy analysis" degree as people who couldn't or didn't want to go to law school. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 07:50:47 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:50:47 -0400 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <005a01c12ad4$1d7fe980$00010a0a@thinkpad574>; from unicorn@schloss.li on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:31:15PM -0700 References: <200108211909.f7LJ9Mf19487@slack.lne.com> <005a01c12ad4$1d7fe980$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <20010825105047.E12511@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:31:15PM -0700, Black Unicorn wrote: > you will, but the partners are hiring their little associates for one reason, > to pay for those cherry wood offices and the but the odds are awfully slim you > will be working on the DMCA. There are so many lawyers out there right now Right. Look at who did handle the only DMCA trial: Martin Garbus, someone whose personality may be lacking in some ways, but not a lawyer who came right out of law school. > I'm not sure how EFF pays, I suspect not particularly well. The high end > corporate firms generally start their first year associates around $110-125k > or so for top end of the top school graduates. More in New York maybe. The > _median_ salary for a Stanford law grad is $95,000.00 if they go into > corporate practice. Just over $40,000.00 for public sector work. EFF in 1999: Salaries and names of top officials: Tara Lemmey Exec. Director $110,577 Shari Steele Legal Dir. $82,400 Money spent on salary: $ 462,368 CDT in 1999: Salaries and names of top officials: Alan Davidson Staff Counsel $ 59,125 Deirdre Mulligan Staff Counsel $ 82,037 James Dempsey Calea Fellow $ 95,221 John Morris Broadband Director $ 71,923 These are all lawyers with a decade or more of work experience. -Declan From ericm at lne.com Sat Aug 25 10:51:28 2001 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:51:28 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <200108251704.NAA15342@blount.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:56:23PM -0700 References: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <200108251704.NAA15342@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <20010825105128.A8166@slack.lne.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:56:23PM -0700, John Young wrote: > Eugene, > > I'd appreciate your not addressing mail to me concerning > Jim Bell, though that may be due to the way your mailer > is set up to respond to cpunk mail. > > I got subpoenaed to the grand jury and trial because > Jim Bell's responses to my messages to cpunks were > addressed to me and cc'ed to cpunks, just as yours > was in this case. Robb London claimed that meant > Jim and I were in direct communication when I was > doing all I could to avoid private contact with Jim, then > as now. Too bad no technical people were called upon to explain how "group reply" works and why many people send copies to both the original poster and to the list without intending any direct communication with the poster that they're replying to. Of course that would not have served Robb's purposes... That said, I have set up lne's CDR to not include a Reply-to field. I beleive that setting Reply-to[1] on a mailing list is a Bad Thing since it means that mail that was intended to be private often accidentally is posted to the list. Besides the added junk that goes to the list as a result, I have seen people seriously damage their lives by accidentally posting very private email to a list when they intended to mail it to an individual. OTOH, the cpunks list has, one hopes, more technically sophisticated readers who would be less likely to make such a mistake. And this is one list where there is an advantage to routing posts through the list. So, lne CDR subscribers, should I set the Reply-to: in mail that originates at the lne CDR? Or should I set the Reply-to: in mail that goes to lne CDR subscribers? Or leave it out as I do now? Eric [1]: Reply-to: is a header field that most mail readers use to fill in the default address when generating a reply. So a Reply-to: cypherpunks at lne.com would mean that by default, someone replying to list mail would send their reply to cypherpunks at lne.com. If Reply-to: is not set, then the default is what's in the From: line which in the case of CDR mail is the original poster. To reply to the poster and to the list, one then needs to do a "group reply" which sends the reply to all the addresses in the header, which usually means the list and the original poster. From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 07:55:13 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:55:13 -0400 Subject: Send Law Students, Idealists and Grant Proposals. Was: Re: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <005a01c12ad4$1d7fe980$00010a0a@thinkpad574>; from unicorn@schloss.li on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:31:15PM -0700 References: <200108211909.f7LJ9Mf19487@slack.lne.com> <005a01c12ad4$1d7fe980$00010a0a@thinkpad574> Message-ID: <20010825105513.F12511@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:31:15PM -0700, Black Unicorn wrote: > Yep. The most interesting lawyers I know are either professors, took high > level positions in government, or do something OTHER than practice law. I've found this to be true. Every few months I'm on a panel with general counsel/corporate lawyers. They're some of the most bland people imaginable. They're even worse when you're interviewing them. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 07:59:58 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:59:58 -0400 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108232316.f7NNGEf32737@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:14:04PM -0700 References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010823152440.045e8440@pop3.norton.antivirus> <200108232316.f7NNGEf32737@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825105958.G12511@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 04:14:04PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Meanwhile, don't expect to see me at the next CFP conference! Plenty of > comped scribblers, though. CFP is in SF next year, so you may want to stop by. As for "comped scribblers," I am one. But look at it from a journalist's perspective: We may attend two conferences a week, say at $1,500/per. Rough estimates, then, would be over $150,000 a year, more than most journalists make. Paying that much in conference fees is not feasible, and conference organizers generally understand this and let us in free (we may pay for meals) in exchange for publicity. -Declan From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 25 09:02:09 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:02:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: <20010825101838.A12511@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 02:10:18PM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > > True. Yet harm gives you cause for Common Law action, no? > > No. If I start a bakery that competes with yours and takes customers > from yours, I have "harmed" you. Yet this is something that society > encourages. No, no 'harm' occurs in that situation. Nothing that was 'yours' was damaged or othewise manipulated without your consent. Those potential customers decision to shop at your store or another isn't 'yours'. Your desires and expectations weren't fulfilled by the expectations of the market or your approach to using it. However, you have no reason to expect those people to have an obligation to do business with you. Typical logical schism in C-A-C-L thinking, the 'individual' is everything and the 'group' is nothing. Not putting 2+2 that the 'group' is nothing but the collective actions of the individual. This is not the sort of 'individualism' that Hayek and other free market proponents are refering too. In a very real sense it's mis-representation. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 25 09:06:49 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:06:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Agreed. As Tim said, one first needs to show that there is a rights > violation, and that harm is indeed being done. In fact I'm of the opinion > that even when that *can* be achieved, it's still not quite ok to regulate > if the harm is not immediate -- even if violent entertainment does cause > violence, and people are dying because of it, you need to show that the > subjects are not left a choice, but are compelled to act violently. Probably > you'd need to show that they've been forced/tricked into watching the stuff > in the first place. None of that can be done in the case of "entertainment > unsuitable for young eyes", of course. Hume's Fork. You have a logical fault in your thinking. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 08:20:49 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:20:49 -0400 Subject: Not black helicopters, but dark green ones ( Off Topic ) In-Reply-To: <3B8693C5.92F26D40@lsil.com>; from mmotyka@lsil.com on Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:49:57AM -0700 References: <3B8693C5.92F26D40@lsil.com> Message-ID: <20010825112048.I12511@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 10:49:57AM -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > shitheads would fly over as low as they could. I've seen A10's, > helicopters and fighters. They're really annoying when you're trying to > cast a fly and enjoy some serene isolation. They should test their shit > in Macedonia or Nevada. Next time I'll bring my particle beam weapon and Some impressive-but-annoying A-10s blasted over me last month while I was in Nevada, nearing the California border en route to Death Valley: http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/death-valley.html http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/death-valley-sand-dunes.html Guess there's just Macedonia left? -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 08:38:26 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:38:26 -0400 Subject: The Choatebot: Alive and prolific Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113155.021421b0@mail.well.com> If anyone needed further proof that Jim Choate is suffering from an advanced form of message-forwarding-related-dementia, or is a 'bot sent to infest cypherpunks, consider the below. Recently we saw two call-for-papers messages for the 2002 Financial Cryptography conference forwarded to cypherpunks. Both were identical (except for headers). Yet Choate forwarded both: One on Tuesday evening and the other on Wednesday morning. The reason for this strange behavior is left as an exercise for the reader. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 08:41:43 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:41:43 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> Two consecutive (not concurrent) sentences, sez the judge yesterday. Jim made a statement to the court. Judge agreed with prosecutors' maximum penalties (otherwise sentences would have been concurrent). See Wired News, probably on Monday, for details. -Declan From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sat Aug 25 09:54:20 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:54:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: <20010825120834.A13824@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 11:02:09AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > No, no 'harm' occurs in that situation. > > Depends on what you mean by "harm." Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me, as well as admitting that your argument is flawed because of it's relativism. You're 'definition' of harm is so broad that it's useless. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 09:08:34 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:08:34 -0400 Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: ; from ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 11:02:09AM -0500 References: <20010825101838.A12511@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010825120834.A13824@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 11:02:09AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > No, no 'harm' occurs in that situation. Depends on what you mean by "harm." If I can't pay my rent, I go bankrupt, I can't put my kids through college, I lose my life savings and my respect in the community, and get divorced, etc. -- some folks might count that as harm. I would not say it is harm that has a legal cause of action. (What am I doing wasting my time correcting Choate? Sigh.) -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 09:10:43 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:10:43 -0400 Subject: PETA gets control of parody peta.org domain, says appeals court Message-ID: <20010825121043.A13849@cluebot.com> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46313,00.html Ethical Treatment of PETA Domain By Declan McCullagh (declan at wired.com) 2:00 a.m. Aug. 25, 2001 PDT WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court has ruled that a website titled "People Eating Tasty Animals" is not only a bad joke, but also an unlawful one. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said this week that the peta.org domain name, registered in 1995 by a man who planned to parody the nonprofit group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was an illegal trademark infringement. Michael Doughney's peta.org parody site lampooned vegetarianism -- which the real PETA insists upon -- and applauded carnivorism, dubbing itself a tongue-in-cheek "resource for those who enjoy eating meat, wearing fur and leather, hunting and the fruits of scientific research." (PETA opposes medical research on animals even in cases where human lives could be saved.) The site's not-so-subtle mockery was red meat to PETA officials, who promptly sued, convinced a federal judge they were right, and then demanded Doughney pay them over $300,000 in attorney's fees and court costs, including photocopying, faxes, courier services, postage, travel, mileage, tolls and parking, long distance telephone calls and "miscellaneous" items. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 25 12:12:03 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:12:03 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> See 9-page judgment in TIF format: http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.tif (262KB) In addition to 10 years Jim was also fined $10,000 due immediately and faces three years of probation. No computer use and a long list of other prohibitions including "no direct or indirect contact with the victim in this case, Special Agent Jeff Gordon." Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Sat Aug 25 10:32:13 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:32:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: (Corrected URL) Re: Redirection server (fwd) Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 570 bytes Desc: not available URL: From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 09:54:17 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:54:17 -0400 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108251604.f7PG4Ff07433@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:02:06AM -0700 References: <20010825105958.G12511@cluebot.com> <200108251604.f7PG4Ff07433@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825125416.A14762@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:02:06AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > First, $1500 per conference sounds way too high, even by today's > inflated standards. Tim, you haven't been to that many commercial conferences recently. I spoke at Internet World last month, and that's exactly how much it is. Even given the economic downturn, they haven't dropped the price. It's still $1,500 for the fall IW: http://www.internetworld.com/events/fall2001/conf_reg.php > Second, I can't believe there are 100 such conferences a year! If you > are going to 2 conferences per week for most of a year, you're going to > way too many conferences! Maybe. But here in DC, there are scores of such conferences each year, and I could easily go to one or two a week. Some of my colleagues at other news organizations, like National Journal Tech Daily, do that. Even "nonprofit" conferences are still pricey: http://www.abanet.org/annual/2001/registration.html $650.00 http://www.cfp2001.org/php/control/main.php?l1=2 $685 > Third, even scaling back the prices and numbers, I wasn't suggesting > that no journalist be comped. Just that comping nearly a third or more > of all attendees says something is out of whack. Probably. Usually there are only a few (~20) journalists who are actually going to cover the event. -Declan From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 25 12:56:23 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:56:23 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: References: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108251704.NAA15342@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Eugene, I'd appreciate your not addressing mail to me concerning Jim Bell, though that may be due to the way your mailer is set up to respond to cpunk mail. I got subpoenaed to the grand jury and trial because Jim Bell's responses to my messages to cpunks were addressed to me and cc'ed to cpunks, just as yours was in this case. Robb London claimed that meant Jim and I were in direct communication when I was doing all I could to avoid private contact with Jim, then as now. He continues to be a witting or unwitting agent of the fuckers in ensnaring stand-off supporters in his comical stupidities which the fuckers take as high serious crimes. And I will ask again to all readers in the universe: do not send me private e-mail about Jim Bell, CJ, or anybody likely to be a target of the SOBs working cybercrime-rich territory. Post your stuff to a public forum, and do not cc me. Thank you very much. From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 09:57:47 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:57:47 -0400 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108251640.f7PGegf07654@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:38:34AM -0700 References: <20010825105958.G12511@cluebot.com> <200108251640.f7PGegf07654@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825125747.B14762@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:38:34AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Granted, the conference gets publicity. But, presumably, the magazine or > other outlet gets readers and viewers. A two-way street, right? Maybe. But so far, market forces have prompted few conferences to try to push journalists around and try to make this argument. I covered PFF's Aspen conference this week. If I had to pay $800, I probably wouldn't have gone. > Frankly, I don't understand why CFP doesn't just accept the inevitable > and move the conference to Washington, D.C. permanently. Tim, you're not thinking like a Washingtonian. The point of having CFP held in other cities (and, in the case of Toronto, another country last year) is so Washingtonians get a nice junket. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 10:00:00 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:00:00 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:12:03PM -0700 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <20010825130000.C14762@cluebot.com> John, Can you post that in another format? Individual JPGs or GIFs or PDF? My version of Photoshop can't open the TIFF file you posted. -Declan On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:12:03PM -0700, John Young wrote: > See 9-page judgment in TIF format: > > http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.tif (262KB) > > In addition to 10 years Jim was also fined $10,000 due > immediately and faces three years of probation. No > computer use and a long list of other prohibitions > including "no direct or indirect contact with the > victim in this case, Special Agent Jeff Gordon." > > Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Sat Aug 25 11:22:04 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:22:04 -0500 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010825141626.A16023@cluebot.com> Message-ID: I don't always monitor folders, for me a CC is a courtesy. ~Aimee > 1. Email sent individually to someone reaches them faster than > when replying to the list. I've often had half-day lag times in > the past with cypherpunks. > > 2. Email sent individually to someone will reach them when the > list is offline. This happened to me earlier this month when > my cpunx node was offline for three or so days. > > 3. In my case, I subscribe under a different (but obvious) address > than my well.com one. If copied on a reply, I'll see it sooner than > than if I open the cypherpunks folder on my *nix machine. > > Naturally some folks (John, Tim) have expressed a preference not > to be copied on messages. > > -Declan From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 13:25:36 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:25:36 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108252027.f7PKRmf09204@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 12:19 PM, dmolnar wrote: > By the way, in case anyone knows Neal Stephenson, I know a science > fiction > conference which would love to invite him. (Yes, I've read his web > page, > yes, it's a lost cause, but writing of luminaries...) Both Neal S. and Vernor Vinge have been attendees at this conference I was mentioning. (I won't be coy, but I'll evade the search engines: the HHaacckkeerrss Conference, held each year.) Both Neal and Vernor are far more interesting than Esther, John, and Mitch. (I had some dealings with Esther back when she was still mainly doing RELease 1.0, and I used to see her around town in Palo Alto, and she was reasonable to talk to. After she became a Globetrotting Pundit, she became too harried and scheduled and "important" to waste time just talking.) The hard part is getting beyond the canned speeches. For one thing, these people (the SF writers especially!) are used to people running up to them at SF conferences babbling to them about some story idea, so they "put their shields up." A few of us spent a Saturday evening and long Sunday with Vernor Vinge some years ago. It was only when we could talk and talk about all sorts of ideas that we got beyond the usual b.s. and defensive shields. Some of what we talked about made it into Vernor's last SF novel, which wouldn't have happened had I just been another SF con attendee who buttonholed him for a few minutes. (Doug Barnes, formerly active on this list, had similar contacts with Neal. I've met Neal a few times, but never got beyond the buttonholing stage...until he contacted me by e-mail after he realized the name of his novel, "Cryptonomicon," was awfully close to the name of my "Cyphernomicon." It turned out, much to my surprise, that Neal had not realized there was a tradition of "Necronomicon" uses, starting of course with Lovecraft. Neal had seen mention of "The Necronomicon" in a late night movie about "fighting skeletons" (I'm presuming it was "Army of Darkness" or "Evil Dead" he happened to see) and he thought the book title sounded cool. He was chagrinned, he told me, to find an entire range of such uses, including my own. He asked me if I objected to his book title, and I told him I of course did not. I had a similar experience with Steven Levy, author of "Hackers" and the recent book "Crypto." I'd met him briefly at various conferences (including the H.C.), but never got beyond the buttonholing stage. Until, that is, he took an interest in crypto and list themes and sought some of us out for longer talks. This is one of the main reasons I favor "relaxicons." In SF circles, these are, as you probably know, small cons with very few scheduled events. Cypherpunks meetings used to be like this, ironically. (The trend recently, for whatever reasons, has been to schedule several speakers. So we end up, for example, with lawyerbabblers from EFF coming in to give a pro forma speech while people try to "buttonhole" the speaker to somehow get a point across. See above.) > >> CFP could have been a conference where tech types mingled with policy >> types. Alas, very few of the Cypherpunks meeting folks ever go to the >> CFPs, even when they're held locally to the Bay Area. >> Mostly lawyers and spooks. > > There was that workshop on "Privacy by Design" at the 99 or 00 CFP, > wasn't > there? The one report I had from that was not favorable, but it's not a > *bad* idea. > > This year, there's a workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies being > held > immediately prior to CFP in the same building. Maybe this will lead to > more interaction. > > http://www.pet2002.org/ > > (Disclaimer: one of the co-chairs is a co-author of mine. So yeah, this > is > thinly disguised plugging for the workshop. No, I don't know how much > it will cost.) I'm skeptical. I haven't looked in detail at this one, but the one Choate forwarded twice to the list was filled with corporate folks on the committees. (Some of whom used to be list subscribers. Fine folks, I'm sure, but now it's a corporate task for them to on committees.) I have another rant in mind, a rant about "affiliations." I'll just play the script and you can figure out what the rant is about: Alice: "What's your affiliation?" Tim: "I'm just a person, Tim May." Alice: "Yes, but what's your _affiliation_? What organization do you represent?" Tim: "Like I said, I'm just who I am. I don't represent anybody but myself." Alice: "Uh...OK...Uh....Say, do you know anyone else who would be willing to speak on this issue?" Our society seems obsessed with affiliations. Nearly everyone quoted in articles is "John Davis, V.P. of Interstitial Affairs at the Datawhack Corporation" or "Mindy Mannheim, Director, Global Progress Alliance." A friend of mine was a space enthusiast (asteroid mining, single stage to orbit, all the usual b.s.). He could never just be "Joe Blow." He was always having new business cards printed up showing his latest project. Always either a V.P. or a Director, except when he was a Program Manager, President, Chairman, or Founder. Never mind that his organizations were either private corporations (usually not even incorporated officially) or 'foundations." It seemed that the way for him to be quoted was to be "Joe Blow, Director of Operations, Solar Satellite Corporation." Being a misanthropic sort, it's great to get journalists out of my hair at conferences by just telling them I don't represent anyone, that I'm just at the conference for myself. If they had t.v. cameras and lights, I'm sure that's the point at which they'd yell "Kill the lights." Instead, they just nod politely and move on, hoping to get a sound bite from a Director or a Program Manager or a Professor. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 13:32:31 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:32:31 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <20010825162122.A18435@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108252034.f7PKYdf09267@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 01:21 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 03:19:49PM -0400, dmolnar wrote: >> This year, there's a workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies being >> held >> immediately prior to CFP in the same building. Maybe this will lead to >> more interaction. > > I'm looking forward to that. Wish I had made the first one. > >> Well, come a few days earlier and sit in comfy chairs for PET, while >> you're at it... > > Tim, if you don't want to pay the admission fee, why don't you go as a > journalist/columnist/commentator? It'll help you get started down the > pundit circuit. :) Fine. I already write for this mailing list (and my stuff gets forwarded to other lists whether I like it or not). And even put in books already published or about to be published. So I'm already a writer. I'll contact the CFP organizers and ask for one of their hundreds of free passes to the panels, talks, and banquets. --Tim May From measl at mfn.org Sat Aug 25 11:41:50 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:41:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: > Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:41:23 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Eugene Leitl > Reply-To: cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com > To: John Young > Cc: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: CDR: Re: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > > > Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. > > If this supposed to have been deterrence, it fully backfired. It > introduced polarization, and makes acts as Mc Veigh's less loony. > > As a direct result of this decision people will get killed eventually. Actually, people have already been killed as a result of this action, when seen (as it should be) as just part of the big picture. This is the kind of thing which breeds Tim McVeighs by the truckload - as well as supporters for the financial needs of the trials... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From envoymail at 1stnetmail.com Sat Aug 25 13:59:00 2001 From: envoymail at 1stnetmail.com (G R I D P I C K S . C O M) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:59:00 (GMT) Subject: FOOTBALL Yea!!! Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4944 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 25 14:13:33 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:13:33 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010825130000.C14762@cluebot.com> References: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Judgment converted to PDF: http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.pdf (404KB) From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 11:16:26 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:16:26 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010825105128.A8166@slack.lne.com>; from ericm@lne.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 10:51:28AM -0700 References: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825105128.A8166@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825141626.A16023@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 10:51:28AM -0700, Eric Murray wrote: > Too bad no technical people were called upon to explain > how "group reply" works and why many people send copies > to both the original poster and to the list without intending > any direct communication with the poster that they're replying > to. Of course that would not have served Robb's purposes... Right. Jim's only witness called in his defense was, well, Jim. Let me speak up in defense of replying to the poster and the list in at least some cases. Obviously replying to a long To: line of a dozen people is just poor manners. But there are at least three advantages that come to mind when copying the original poster: 1. Email sent individually to someone reaches them faster than when replying to the list. I've often had half-day lag times in the past with cypherpunks. 2. Email sent individually to someone will reach them when the list is offline. This happened to me earlier this month when my cpunx node was offline for three or so days. 3. In my case, I subscribe under a different (but obvious) address than my well.com one. If copied on a reply, I'll see it sooner than than if I open the cypherpunks folder on my *nix machine. Naturally some folks (John, Tim) have expressed a preference not to be copied on messages. -Declan From bill.stewart at pobox.com Sat Aug 25 14:17:07 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:17:07 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010825130000.C14762@cluebot.com> References: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010825140820.034abec0@idiom.com> Declan - I've found that "Irfanview" is an excellent tool for reading lots of different graphics formats, including TIFF. Available at the usual download sites. At 01:00 PM 08/25/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >John, >Can you post that in another format? Individual JPGs or GIFs or PDF? >My version of Photoshop can't open the TIFF file you posted. > >-Declan > > >On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:12:03PM -0700, John Young wrote: > > See 9-page judgment in TIF format: > > > > http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.tif (262KB) From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 14:33:14 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:33:14 -0700 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <20010825164536.C18435@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108252135.f7PLZMf09568@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 01:45 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 04:37:37PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> Just because the "homeland war" -- which you seem overly fixated on -- >> will likely lead to an erosion of some liberties, it does not >> logically follow that it will lead to an erosion of all of them. I >> urge you and any other publisher/reporter/commentator types reading >> this not to stand up for your First Amendment rights and not assume >> that you must divulge unpublished information about sources if you > > Too many "not"s in that sentence. I obviously meant that you should > stand up for your 1A rights as a reporter/publisher/commentator. > > That does impose a cost (mental and legal), true. But if you want to > be a reporter/publisher/commentator, it's the cost of doing business. > As we've discussed before (and Declan is in agreement), the First Amendment doesn't give some specific class of people ("reporters") special rights not held by everyone. _Some_ states have passed what I think are wholly unconstitutional "shield laws" conferring special privileges on officially-recognized journalists and reporters. Some states do not have such shield laws. I don't know what laws Washington state has. But there is no reason why Declan M. should be permitted to remain silent on what he has been told if Vinnie the Rat is not also permitted to remain silent about what he knows. The whole notion that Declan is an Official Reporter but that John Young is not stinks. And if John Young is a reporter, with special rights to not reveal his sources or contacts, then so is Tim May. And so is Bill Clinton, Linda Tripp, Gary Condit, and Vinnie the Rat. (Some of those in Le Affair Lewinsky later wrote books and sold their stories. They were not exempted from being asked to testify on who said what to whom.) If Vinnie the Rat has a contract to write an expose of his boss, John Gotti, is he magically excused from testifying? Why would Declan be exempt from having to answer questions about what Jim Bell told him? Not having been anywhere near the courthouse, and not having followed the ins and outs of the trial closely, my hunch is that the prosecution didn't think it needed this particular testimony, or that any testimony Declan might have had about what he remembered of Jim Bell's phone calls to him would be weak evidence or challenged as hearsay. I doubt that "a reporter's First Amendment rights" entered into the calculation in a primary way (though perhaps in a secondary way, as it was a potential can of worms not worth opening for the limited probative value of Declan's remembrances of a phone conversation.) Shield laws are a bad, bad idea. And once extended to reporters, they get extended in other ways the courts and the state like. To other government agents, for example. To the Secret Service agents with knowledge of what the President was doing in the Lewinsky case. This happened. While fishing expeditions for gossip and dirt are not desirable in a free society, exempting certain persons and offices from illumination in court cases is even less desirable. --Tim May From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 25 14:42:58 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:42:58 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: References: <20010825141626.A16023@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108251850.OAA15568@blount.mail.mindspring.net> I've been typing in the cpunks address in reply for months, and don't mind, after reading about a host of problems associated with automatic replies and cc's and hidden header information that doesn't show up kiddie-script mailers. And nothing I've written about avoiding private contact with Jim Bell is meant to diminish support for the entrapped anti-hero who deserves widest possible attention and backing no matter your personal opinion of his seeming stupidities in taking the feds poisoned bait. This was a show trial which had little to do with Jim Bell's piddlings. These varmints are going after bigger game using Jim as a lure. Still it was a pleasure to meet Jim in Seattle surrounded by the mighty US pro-terrorist forces, him in his ruppled prison blues, the terrorists in camouflage suits and ties, going home at night, bragging about winning the endless war against perps, nervously double-checking their homeland defenses. The court's inhuman form-based judgment makes me want to puke at its futile avoidance of broad personal responsibility, London and Tanner signing for the undercover cowards up and down the nationwide war-chart. From jim_windle at eudoramail.com Sat Aug 25 11:56:55 2001 From: jim_windle at eudoramail.com (Jim Windle) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:56:55 -0400 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:39:06 Tim May wrote: >as I think lawyers generally create entropy and >inefficiency, no matter their intentions. "Lawyers are like nuclear weapons, the other side has theirs, so I have to have mine. But once you use them they fuck everything up." 'Larry the Liquidator" Garfield in "Other People's Money" That seems pretty accurate to me. Jim Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 11:58:55 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:58:55 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:13:33PM -0700 References: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825130000.C14762@cluebot.com> <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <20010825145853.B16765@cluebot.com> Other coverage: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/08/25/1849248 On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 02:13:33PM -0700, John Young wrote: > Judgment converted to PDF: > > http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.pdf (404KB) From dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu Sat Aug 25 12:19:49 2001 From: dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu (dmolnar) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 15:19:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108251604.f7PG4Ff07433@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > First, $1500 per conference sounds way too high, even by today's > inflated standards. Just off the top of my head: O'Reilly P2P Conference, Standard Conference Fee: $1595 http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/p2pweb2001/pub/w/16/register.html RSA 2002 Conference: $995 to $1795, depending on when you register (Special $595 for "Academics", scholarships for students) Overheard at a conference business meeting: "What about special rates for attendees who are neither business nor academia?" "ARE there any such people?" Hey, at least DEF CON is still $50 ! although Black Hat is $1195 + $700 per training course. > some of the Big Luminaries: Esther Dyson, John Perry Barlow, Mitch > Kapor, etc. They upgraded the venue, raised the rates, and sought > corporate sponsorship. So the rates rose. (And the Luminaries are, to my By the way, in case anyone knows Neal Stephenson, I know a science fiction conference which would love to invite him. (Yes, I've read his web page, yes, it's a lost cause, but writing of luminaries...) > CFP could have been a conference where tech types mingled with policy > types. Alas, very few of the Cypherpunks meeting folks ever go to the > CFPs, even when they're held locally to the Bay Area. > Mostly lawyers and spooks. There was that workshop on "Privacy by Design" at the 99 or 00 CFP, wasn't there? The one report I had from that was not favorable, but it's not a *bad* idea. This year, there's a workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies being held immediately prior to CFP in the same building. Maybe this will lead to more interaction. http://www.pet2002.org/ (Disclaimer: one of the co-chairs is a co-author of mine. So yeah, this is thinly disguised plugging for the workshop. No, I don't know how much it will cost.) > I'll probably attend the next CFP the way I attended the very first > one...by sitting in the comfortable chairs in the lobby area. Well, come a few days earlier and sit in comfy chairs for PET, while you're at it... -David From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 25 15:44:25 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 15:44:25 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010825145853.B16765@cluebot.com> References: <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825130000.C14762@cluebot.com> <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108251952.PAA17636@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Declan, you are still tarring me with messages addressed to me and cc'ed to cpunks. So I state: I want no direct e-mail to me about cybercriminals convicted or likely to be that. Anybody does that after I ask them not to I will consider working with the authorities, wittingly or unwittingly. Let me say that again, any reporter, priest, doctor, lawyer, or any other likely undercover agent which meets with me, sends me e-mail, telephones me, or faxes me without making that simultaneously public I will interpret as an attempt to entrap either for professional reasons or to help the authorities or both. Declan, I say to you, that means you. I think you are being used as a lure just as much as Jim Bell, CJ and a several more. Your journalistic conceit appears to be blinding you to the threat you pose. Recall our talk about this in Seattle when you warned me that our conversations could be someday revealed in court, and that you considered your telling me that as fair warning to be careful what I told you. This is not to single you out, I told the 60 Minutes reporters and other journalists what I'm saying to you here. None of you fuckers are free of being forced to tell what you have been told in confidence, and no fair warning relieves you of the obligation to tell those who confided in you just what you are telling others to save your own ass. All the privileged receivers of confidential information got to get used to going public before they are forced to testify in secret. That is happening now and will happen more as the homeland war heats up and nuts and tits get squeezed. Where am I going with this? I believe Jim Bell and CJ were shopped to the feds, and others are probably being shopped right now, whether on purpose or by inadvertency. I don't know who all is involved with this shit but it is damn well is going to come out. Best to just not pretend anymore that these privileged parties can or will keep information confidential. That means nobody. From jeffersgary at hotmail.com Sat Aug 25 14:06:32 2001 From: jeffersgary at hotmail.com (Gary Jeffers) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:06:32 -0500 Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. Message-ID: My fellow Cypherpunks, Ray Dillinger believes that scanning would assist oppressors as much as regular users. Joseph Ashwood agrees with this and further thinks that the Internet overhead of a scanner would be a serious problem. I still think that scanners would be effective. Here's why: Gnutella still exists, Napster doesn't! Security does not have to be bulletproof in all cases. Gnutella is a harder target than was Napster. There may be other reasons why Gnutella is alive and Napster is dead. I would think the ability to pin blame on the target might be another reason. A scan enabled Gnutella would be a much harder target than a central service provided Gnutella. The scan enabled version would be much harder to shut down due to various kinds of expenses - legal, administ- rative, politics, etc.. Not impossible to shut down - just harder, slower, and with various expenses we would like the oppressors to pick up :-) Also, with lack of centralization, it would be much harder to pin legal blame on the servers(users). - Much harder, slower, and politically expensive. This is generally a sort of economics problem for oppressors. As far as Joseph Ashwood's claim that the Internet overhead would be too much. Is his point exaggerated? Would it be possible to write low overhead scanners? I do not have the "skill set" to say. Maybe he is right, maybe not. Anybody got something definitive to say on this? Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers BEAT STATE!!! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From envoymail at 1stnetmail.com Sat Aug 25 16:17:23 2001 From: envoymail at 1stnetmail.com (Grid Picks.com) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:17:23 (GMT) Subject: FOOTBALL yea!!!!! Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4944 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bill.stewart at pobox.com Sat Aug 25 16:18:33 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:18:33 -0700 Subject: Top Firms Retreat Into Bunker To Ward Off 'Anarchists' In-Reply-To: <000001c12d0d$0c05dc60$0300a8c0@chimera19> References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010825161529.034a4290@idiom.com> Definitely. That's why any large computing facility makes sure to have two or more physically separate cable connections, with dual building entrances, minimum distances between cables, etc. A nuke bunker probably was built with the cable exits some distance from the main building, though depending on the age and paranoia level it may not have been done with reusable technology (e.g. coax vs. conduit that you can run fiber in.) At 10:24 PM 08/24/2001 -0400, Phillip H. Zakas wrote: >The most sophisticated bunkers in the world are still vulnerable to the >average utility digging crew. >phillip > > > Matthew Gaylor > > From: "Moon Kat" > > TOP FIRMS RETREAT INTO BUNKER TO WARD OFF 'ANARCHISTS' > > > > "Some of Britain's biggest companies are running their Internet > > operations on systems installed in a 300ft-deep nuclear blast-proof > > bunker to protect customers from violent anti-capitalist campaigners. From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 13:21:22 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:21:22 -0400 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: ; from dmolnar@hcs.harvard.edu on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 03:19:49PM -0400 References: <200108251604.f7PG4Ff07433@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825162122.A18435@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 03:19:49PM -0400, dmolnar wrote: > This year, there's a workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies being held > immediately prior to CFP in the same building. Maybe this will lead to > more interaction. I'm looking forward to that. Wish I had made the first one. > Well, come a few days earlier and sit in comfy chairs for PET, while > you're at it... Tim, if you don't want to pay the admission fee, why don't you go as a journalist/columnist/commentator? It'll help you get started down the pundit circuit. :) -Declan From ashwood at msn.com Sat Aug 25 14:24:11 2001 From: ashwood at msn.com (Joseph Ashwood) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:24:11 -0500 Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. References: Message-ID: <012a01c12dac$4e874fc0$e1c1b6c7@josephas> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Jeffers" > I still think that scanners would be effective. Here's why: > > A scan enabled Gnutella would be a much harder target than a central > service provided Gnutella. The scan enabled version would be much harder to > shut down due to various kinds of expenses - legal, administ- > rative, politics, etc.. Not impossible to shut down - just harder, > slower, and with various expenses we would like the oppressors to pick > up :-) A scan enabled Gnutella would reveal itself immediately to a somewhat intelligent legal team who would simply set up a cheap system that would recieve the pings, making the users _easier_ to locate instead of your assumed harder, since the legal team would not even necessarily have to ping the world themselves. > As far as Joseph Ashwood's claim that the Internet overhead would be > too much. Is his point exaggerated? Would it be possible to write low > overhead scanners? I do not have the "skill set" to say. Maybe he is > right, maybe not. Anybody got something definitive to say on this? It's a fairly simple problem, under IPv4 there are 2^32 ip addresses. A fast ping is a few milliseconds each ping, and can be mounted from a large connection at a large number simultaneously, so lets say 8192 attempts per second. A fast ping machine will take 2^32/8192 seconds which comes out to 524288 seconds or about 4 days. So the ping set itself would take too long. The internet clogging comes from the quantity of these pings. Let's say there are 1 million Gnutella pingers, they all of course first hit AOL because it's a prime candidate for pretty much anything. AOL has let's say 65536 addresses, receiving 1 million pings per second (approximately) which will fully occupy several T1 lines which means that the ping messages will be blocked at every router disabling the scan portion of gnutella putting us back where we are now, but with more time, more code, and more bloat dedicated to it. So we'd slow down every major network until they all block the gnutella ping messages some how, costing everyone more time, more money, more hassle, more headaches. Like it or not, the ping idea for Gnutella is a very bad idea. Joe From news at mailings.advisorteam.com Sat Aug 25 16:24:36 2001 From: news at mailings.advisorteam.com (David Keirsey & AdvisorTeam) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AdvisorTeam PersonalityZone Newsletter - August 2001 Message-ID: 
PersonalityZone N E W S L E T T E R by AdvisorTeam - August, 2001

******************************************************************
Click here for the enhanced online version of our newsletter:
http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/newsletter0801/PersonalityZone.html
******************************************************************

IN THIS ISSUE:

  TEMPERAMENT IN ACTION: What's Your Learning Style?

  DREAM DATE CONTEST : And The Winners Are... 

  NEW ROOMMATES: How to Get Along with Yours This Year

  @ ADVISORTEAM: Unlock The Gift of Personality!

  CAREER 911: Does Your Job Match Your Temperament?

  CARTOON: Temperament On The Beach

******************************************************************

TEMPERAMENT IN ACTION: What's Your Learning Style? 
AdvisorTeam Explores the Four Temperament Learning Styles 

Most of us start (or started) back to school each year full of
enthusiasm and ambition. This year, we say, "I will buckle down,
stay on top of things, and get good grades." How often does that
promise become a reality? Understanding your personality, and how
it affects your learning style can lead to greater academic success,
less guilt, and more fun!

http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/newsletter0801/learnstyle.html

******************************************************************

DREAM DATE CONTEST: And The Winners Are... 
Read the Winning Entries

In our June newsletter, AdvisorTeam announced our dream date
contest. A $250 dream date prize was offered to the individual or
couple who sent in the best story about how temperament improved
their relationship.

Congratulations to our dream date contest winner, Dianne Englot,
who shared her story about how type helped her understand and
better appreciate her new husband.

http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/newsletter0801/contest.html

******************************************************************

NEW ROOMMATES: How To Get Along With Yours 
A Big Part of Your Success This Year May Depend on It

Living together as roommates is one of the most challenging kinds
of relationships. When your college assigns you a roommate, or
when you and a friend move in together for the first time, it may
take some effort to understand your own needs and those of your
roommate. Learning about personality type and temperament can help
you improve how you communicate with each other. 
 
http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/newsletter0801/roommate.html
http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/newsletter0801/roommate.html

******************************************************************

@ ADVISORTEAM 
Unlock The Gift Of Personality!

Empower a friend, relative, or coworker with the gift of
personality. For only $14.95, they can unlock the in-depth
insights provided in the Keirsey AdvisorTeam Report to celebrate
their differences. Click here to purchase the Keirsey Temperament
Sorter II and Keirsey-AdvisorTeam Report. 

http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/gift/intro.asp

******************************************************************

DOES YOUR JOB MATCH YOUR TEMPERAMENT? 
You Deserve A Satisfying Career!

Career911 is a career counseling, coaching and testing service.
Its skilled staff brings its time-tested approach to the
electronic marketplace. This approach will help you combine
knowledge about yourself with the world of work. When you are more
knowledgeable, you can make the informed decisions that lead to a
satisfying career. 

http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.career911.net/default.asp?rpid=31

******************************************************************
 
CARTOON  
Jeni Rae Duschak with "Temperament on the Beach"

Cartoonist Jeni Rae Duschak reveals an example of temperament on
the beach from her summer vacation. 

http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/newsletter0801/Cartoon.html
http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/newsletter0801/Cartoon.html

******************************************************************

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: 
PersonalityZone(TM) by AdvisorTeam is a FREE newsletter for
AdvisorTeam members, and anyone else who wants to understand
themselves better. Sent monthly, PersonalityZone gives you new
insight into your yourself, and provides ways to meaningfully use
that knowledge in your daily life. Feel free to pass this
newsletter on to friends or family, and encourage them to take
the first step towards a better understanding of themselves by
taking the Keirsey Test! 

You received this message because you are a registered member
of AdvisorTeam. 

To alter your delivery settings, http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/user/login.asp.
To forward this newsletter to a friend, please http://mailings.advisorteam.com/forward3/OJA_OMCAB!f7a4d6226eae6cc8.
If you would like to be removed from future newsletter mailings,
please http://mailings.advisorteam.com/remove3/OJA_OMCAB!f7a4d6226eae6cc8.
To sign up for other free special offers from AdvisorTeam, please http://mailings.advisorteam.com/redir3/OJA_OMCAB!http://www.advisorteam.com/user/specialoffersignup.asp.

Copyright 2001 AdvisorTeam.com, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 17848 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 16:29:21 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:29:21 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108252331.f7PNVTf10146@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 02:46 PM, Faustine wrote: > Declan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:05:04PM -0400, Faustine wrote: >> Great points. If you're looking to make a difference re: cypherpunk and >> pro-libertarian issues and have a scientific and practical streak, why >> not >> get an advanced degree in policy analysis instead? You get a rock-solid >> grounding in a number of critical disciplines, and put yourself in a >> position to seriously affect policy on the broadest possible stage. > >> Alas, the best policy analysts I've seen are lawyers. Folks in DC, at >> least,look down at people who got an easier "policy analysis" degree as >> people who couldn't or didn't want to go to law school. > >> -Declan > > True, if you don't pick your program carefully, it's entirely too > possible > to end up with a nebulous grab bag of an education that doesn't amount > to > much. It's all in the school, really. And I agree, there are some > fantastic > lawyer-analysts out there. But the ones I really admire are the > mathematician-analysts, the hard-science analysts: they tend not to hog > the > limelight like some of their more voluble counterparts, but their > influence > is still enormous. I'd be interesting in hearing whom you think are good examples. I can think of some scientists who had enormous influences on policy, men like Szilard, Von Neumann, Fermi, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Teller, and a bunch of others just in their field. Or in fields like game theory, economics, biology, medicine, and so on. But the typical "mathematician-analyst" coming out of a typical grad program, even a high-reputation grad program, is not going to have "enormous influence." A vanishingly small fraction will, in fact. Look, while you condemn all the anonymous and pseudonymous posts here, we know zero about who you are, where you are, what you do, except that you're probably some kind of intern who surfs the Net while your employer for the summer is paying you do some kind of study. Do you think you are preparing to have "enormous influence" on policy? Do you think the superdupercomputer you say you want to assemble out of old machines will help you in some magical way in this goal? I know a couple of ex-CIA "mathematician-analysts" who were deemed tops in their classes. One is now headed out to the Bay Area to do something more useful. Another I've lost track of. Neither seems to have had "enormous influence" on policy. > It's kind of interesting to see how the field evolved and grew out of > the > strictly military/operations research stuff in the 50s into what it is > now. > It's still evolving, which is part of what makes it so exciting. I > don't > think what I'm doing is any easier than law school, quite the contrary! > Maybe it's better to say it *can* be easier than law school--and often > is-- > but doesn't have to be if you're in the right place and have some > purpose > behind your choices. > > And I hope I didn't sound too down on studying law. I took a graduate > class > in constitutional law myself and spent a semester learning to write > briefs, > getting acquainted with West's Law Finder, etc. just because it's so > important. I'd definitely recommend that much to anyone. The children shall lead us... --Tim May From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 13:37:37 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:37:37 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <200108251952.PAA17636@blount.mail.mindspring.net>; from jya@pipeline.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 03:44:25PM -0700 References: <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825130000.C14762@cluebot.com> <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825145853.B16765@cluebot.com> <200108251952.PAA17636@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <20010825163737.B18435@cluebot.com> John, calm down. I replied to all on a message you wrote; I asked you for a different file format. It had nothing to do with the substance of the case. Also, your "if my name does not show up on the To: line I'm OK" is terribly naive. A prosecutor would show to the jury the "In-Reply-To:" header that shows I'm replying to your message, the quoted text below which demonstrates the same thing, or even the fact that I started this message with your name, as you did to me. The problem with your analysis is that it's impressionist, and perhaps a little terrified. You chose to testify without hiring a lawyer, a bad move that left you at the mercy of the prosecutor. What you should have done (if you have the resources; I know cryptome is hardly a for-profit venture) is said you were a journalist and refused to answer questions beyond did-you-publish-this-article. (At the time, you told me representing yourself on the stand gave you more leeway and protection, a belief that turned out not to be correct.) Instead, you ended up chatting as much as that local reporter. Just because the "homeland war" -- which you seem overly fixated on -- will likely lead to an erosion of some liberties, it does not logically follow that it will lead to an erosion of all of them. I urge you and any other publisher/reporter/commentator types reading this not to stand up for your First Amendment rights and not assume that you must divulge unpublished information about sources if you happen to receive a subpoena. See documents at: http://www.mccullagh.org/subpoena/ I don't remember telling you that what you (John Young) told me would be "someday revealed in court" and I suspect you misunderstood. (Unless I was talking about wiretaps or electronic surveillance.) I did not reveal what, if anything, Jim Bell told me, during my brief courtroom appearance, which prompted the prosecutor to say I was a "hostile witness." As I've said here quite, my general policy is that I treat information that I collect during newsgathering and reporting purposes in confidence. Most other reporters do the same, and complaining about "homeland wars" does not change that fact. -Declan On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 03:44:25PM -0700, John Young wrote: > Declan, you are still tarring me with messages addressed to > me and cc'ed to cpunks. So I state: I want no direct e-mail > to me about cybercriminals convicted or likely to be that. > Anybody does that after I ask them not to I will consider > working with the authorities, wittingly or unwittingly. > > Let me say that again, any reporter, priest, doctor, lawyer, > or any other likely undercover agent which meets with me, > sends me e-mail, telephones me, or faxes me without > making that simultaneously public I will interpret as an > attempt to entrap either for professional reasons or to > help the authorities or both. > > Declan, I say to you, that means you. I think you are being > used as a lure just as much as Jim Bell, CJ and a several > more. Your journalistic conceit appears to be blinding you > to the threat you pose. Recall our talk about this in Seattle > when you warned me that our conversations could be > someday revealed in court, and that you considered your > telling me that as fair warning to be careful what I told you. > > This is not to single you out, I told the 60 Minutes reporters > and other journalists what I'm saying to you here. None > of you fuckers are free of being forced to tell what you > have been told in confidence, and no fair warning relieves > you of the obligation to tell those who confided in you just > what you are telling others to save your own ass. > > All the privileged receivers of confidential information got > to get used to going public before they are forced to testify > in secret. That is happening now and will happen more as > the homeland war heats up and nuts and tits get squeezed. > > Where am I going with this? I believe Jim Bell and CJ > were shopped to the feds, and others are probably being > shopped right now, whether on purpose or by inadvertency. > I don't know who all is involved with this shit but it is damn > well is going to come out. > > Best to just not pretend anymore that these privileged parties > can or will keep information confidential. That means nobody. From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 13:45:36 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:45:36 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010825163737.B18435@cluebot.com>; from declan@well.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 04:37:37PM -0400 References: <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825130000.C14762@cluebot.com> <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825145853.B16765@cluebot.com> <200108251952.PAA17636@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825163737.B18435@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010825164536.C18435@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 04:37:37PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Just because the "homeland war" -- which you seem overly fixated on -- > will likely lead to an erosion of some liberties, it does not > logically follow that it will lead to an erosion of all of them. I > urge you and any other publisher/reporter/commentator types reading > this not to stand up for your First Amendment rights and not assume > that you must divulge unpublished information about sources if you Too many "not"s in that sentence. I obviously meant that you should stand up for your 1A rights as a reporter/publisher/commentator. That does impose a cost (mental and legal), true. But if you want to be a reporter/publisher/commentator, it's the cost of doing business. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 13:47:02 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:47:02 -0400 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108252034.f7PKYdf09267@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 01:32:31PM -0700 References: <20010825162122.A18435@cluebot.com> <200108252034.f7PKYdf09267@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825164702.D18435@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 01:32:31PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > I'll contact the CFP organizers and ask for one of their hundreds of > free passes to the panels, talks, and banquets. Let me know if you're turned down. BTW reporters have to pay for banquets and lunch/dinners at CFP. Some are $50. -Declan From decoy at iki.fi Sat Aug 25 06:49:47 2001 From: decoy at iki.fi (Sampo Syreeni) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:49:47 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Voluntary Mandatory Self-Ratings and Limits on Speech In-Reply-To: <3B822800.27773.566F14A@localhost> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote: >Harm does, but "harm" doesn't. It's pretty easy to claim that books and >movies etc which "glorify" "bad" behavior lead to viewers being more >likely to engage in the bad behavior glorified, or bad behavior in >general, without even trying to claim that a particular "bad book" was >responsible for a particular crime. Agreed. As Tim said, one first needs to show that there is a rights violation, and that harm is indeed being done. In fact I'm of the opinion that even when that *can* be achieved, it's still not quite ok to regulate if the harm is not immediate -- even if violent entertainment does cause violence, and people are dying because of it, you need to show that the subjects are not left a choice, but are compelled to act violently. Probably you'd need to show that they've been forced/tricked into watching the stuff in the first place. None of that can be done in the case of "entertainment unsuitable for young eyes", of course. The reason I started talking about harm is that *if* we could satisfy the above conditions, we would have a case for regulation, even if basic rights are thereby infringed. >The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the crucial point that >the people calling for labelling ("voluntary" or otherwise) are not your >customers, they're people trying to protect their own or their children's >virgin eyes from content they find offensive or blasphemous or whatever. Those who campaign for voluntary labelling without a covert agenda (who Tim argues represent a negligible minority of rating advocates) naturally hope that those who *are* your clients will be requiring the ratings, and so providing the incentive to rate. In essence, they hope that the presence of voluntary ratings will become the norm, and as essential to the reputation of an online entity as its credit rating, or the accuracy of its past communications. They are daydreaming, of course, but I do not see where the basic fault in this reasoning is. >You have an economic incentive to please your customers, but you have no >incentive to please people who aren't your customers. The trouble is, rating schemes can be turned into certification schemes, where the label represents an assurance that the information is kosher. In this case, you *do* rate for the customer. The same would happen with current rating schemes if they were to become widespread enough; one can imagine MAPS like blacklists, non-cooperation of ISPs and so on, where people who are not your direct customers still react to unrated content as a part of a collective effort to control some (imaginary) externality. Nobody wants this to happen, of course, and it hardly will, given the effort it would take to "rate the Internet". The point is, there is nothing wrong with the economics per se. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy at iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front From bill.stewart at pobox.com Sat Aug 25 17:10:46 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:10:46 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108251604.f7PG4Ff07433@slack.lne.com> References: <20010825105958.G12511@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010825165347.02f79dc0@idiom.com> At 09:02 AM 08/25/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >I'll probably attend the next CFP the way I attended the very first one... >by sitting in the comfortable chairs in the lobby area. The....Comfy Chair? http://montypython.net/scripts/spanish.php One of the difficulties of working in the Bay Area is that when conferences *are* here, I often don't get a chance to get to the daytime parts, and many of them are price-structured in a way that you can't just pay for evening events. So hanging around the lobby and the bar in the evening is the way to get to them. For Usenix, that's not so bad - it's always been part relaxicon as well as session-oriented convention, and more than a few companies have started out with conversations in the bar.... From bill.stewart at pobox.com Sat Aug 25 17:24:31 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:24:31 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <20010825125747.B14762@cluebot.com> References: <200108251640.f7PGegf07654@slack.lne.com> <20010825105958.G12511@cluebot.com> <200108251640.f7PGegf07654@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010825171522.034b4e80@idiom.com> At 12:57 PM 08/25/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:38:34AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > > Granted, the conference gets publicity. But, presumably, the magazine or > > other outlet gets readers and viewers. A two-way street, right? > >Maybe. But so far, market forces have prompted few conferences to try >to push journalists around and try to make this argument. I covered >PFF's Aspen conference this week. If I had to pay $800, I probably >wouldn't have gone. But PFF is also a Pundit-Con - it gets its value not only from the speakers and attendees but also from the reporters who attend, and they're as important a part of the business expenses of the conference as booze and rubber chicken, and there'd probably be fewer paying attendees without them. Similarly, at PR-oriented computer conferences (Comdex et al.) that's the case, while at academic conferences (Crypto in Santa Barbara, for instance), they're not, and obviously at journalism-oriented conferences they're the target paying audience so they're not comped. I suspect Tim's objection to paying high rates for conferences where journalists are comped is partly due to the content and style of the conference... From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 25 17:42:07 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:42:07 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010825164536.C18435@cluebot.com> References: <20010825163737.B18435@cluebot.com> <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825130000.C14762@cluebot.com> <200108251821.OAA15821@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825145853.B16765@cluebot.com> <200108251952.PAA17636@blount.mail.mindspring.net> <20010825163737.B18435@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108252149.RAA13991@blount.mail.mindspring.net> We'll have up this weekend a 180-page report by the Defense Science Board on "Protecting the Homeland -- Defensive Information Operations," a study conducted in the summer of 2000, published in March 2001, which describes in detail multi-billion dollar proposals for combating threats to the US by technologies, if not politics, promoted on this list. It could hardly be more descriptive of the multi-agency operations deployed in the Bell, CJ and other cybercrime trials and proposes as well what must be done to change defense, intelligence, law enforcement and civil liberties legislation to assure that defense of the homeland takes precedence over long-established rights of the citizenry. Curiously, the document charges that DoJ and the FBI are mulishly resisting sharing investigative information with Defense by citing legal restrictions on allowing outsider access. (That could be smokescreening.) The report urges that Defense and Intel be given ready access to whatever information will assist their urgent task. One of the legal advisors to the task force was Stewart Baker, but there were several dozen industry and governmental participants. Here's a policy snippet: "Following the end of the Cold War, and the subsequent changes in the geopolitical climate, the United States now faces a different kind of threat. This threat is characterized by the ability of numerous potential adversaries to engage in an information attack upon the United States, enabled by the lower entry costs associated with such an attack. America's ability to attribute and respond is woefully inadequate to pose a significant deterrent to would be attackers. On the other end of the spectrum, early tactical indications and warning capabilities are virtually non-existent in cyberspace. These factors converge to create a newly and differently vulnerable U.S. homeland. It is the contention of the task force that immediate actions can work to decrease the threat and potential damage to U.S. national security, including infrastructures, institutions and individuals. The United States national security apparatus must continue to evolve over time to deal with these emerging trans-national threats, including trans-boundary threats where the differences between law enforcement and national defense, between foreign and domestic, between national and transnational, and between government and civilian are increasingly irrelevant." From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 17:44:39 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:44:39 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010825171522.034b4e80@idiom.com> Message-ID: <200108260046.f7Q0kkf10421@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 05:24 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: > At 12:57 PM 08/25/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:38:34AM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> > Granted, the conference gets publicity. But, presumably, the >> magazine or >> > other outlet gets readers and viewers. A two-way street, right? >> >> Maybe. But so far, market forces have prompted few conferences to try >> to push journalists around and try to make this argument. I covered >> PFF's Aspen conference this week. If I had to pay $800, I probably >> wouldn't have gone. > > But PFF is also a Pundit-Con - it gets its value not only from the > speakers > and attendees but also from the reporters who attend, and they're as > important a > part of the business expenses of the conference as booze and rubber > chicken, > and there'd probably be fewer paying attendees without them. > Similarly, at PR-oriented computer conferences (Comdex et al.) that's > the case, > while at academic conferences (Crypto in Santa Barbara, for instance), > they're not, and obviously at journalism-oriented conferences they're > the target paying audience so they're not comped. > > I suspect Tim's objection to paying high rates for conferences where > journalists are comped is partly due to the content and style of the > conference... Good points. And I'd say that _most_ conferences these days are a mixture of: --pundits wanting to be quoted in the trade mags, meaning the conferences are like the Sunday talk shows on television --a place to unveil official policy initiatives (at the last CFP I went to, I was amazed to see so many presentations by DOJ subofficials and DOD spokessoldiers) --commercial and trade show activities. --a junket, as Declan noted I won't pay these rates for _any_ conference. Greg Broiles hit the nail on the head: the only ones worth paying for are the ones with short-term economic payoff. For CFP, this probably means law firms hoping to get some business, or hoping to recruit some lawyers. The calculus changes if one's employer is paying. Other factors, plus a reduced subjective notion of price (viewed as a junket, a _negative_ price). Believe me, I'm not pleading poverty. I just am not in the target attendance group for conferences like CFP, as I won't pay $600 or whatever it is these days to hear a Pentagon official deliver a canned speech (multiply by N for the other speakers). The Conference's loss. They'd obviously rather charge high prices, comp a bunch of large number of journalists, and so on and so on. (No need to repeat my points.) Even the "Privacy Enhancement Workshop" (or whatever) is likely to be mostly the same. Hell, some of us were deeply involved in the invention and outlining of this stuff. But the paper presenters will be the academics and government officials who have research grants to justify or policy positions to present. Fuck that noise. --Tim May From a3495 at cotse.com Sat Aug 25 14:46:58 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money Message-ID: Declan wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:05:04PM -0400, Faustine wrote: > Great points. If you're looking to make a difference re: cypherpunk and >pro-libertarian issues and have a scientific and practical streak, why not >get an advanced degree in policy analysis instead? You get a rock-solid > grounding in a number of critical disciplines, and put yourself in a > position to seriously affect policy on the broadest possible stage. >Alas, the best policy analysts I've seen are lawyers. Folks in DC, at >least,look down at people who got an easier "policy analysis" degree as >people who couldn't or didn't want to go to law school. >-Declan True, if you don't pick your program carefully, it's entirely too possible to end up with a nebulous grab bag of an education that doesn't amount to much. It's all in the school, really. And I agree, there are some fantastic lawyer-analysts out there. But the ones I really admire are the mathematician-analysts, the hard-science analysts: they tend not to hog the limelight like some of their more voluble counterparts, but their influence is still enormous. It's kind of interesting to see how the field evolved and grew out of the strictly military/operations research stuff in the 50s into what it is now. It's still evolving, which is part of what makes it so exciting. I don't think what I'm doing is any easier than law school, quite the contrary! Maybe it's better to say it *can* be easier than law school--and often is-- but doesn't have to be if you're in the right place and have some purpose behind your choices. And I hope I didn't sound too down on studying law. I took a graduate class in constitutional law myself and spent a semester learning to write briefs, getting acquainted with West's Law Finder, etc. just because it's so important. I'd definitely recommend that much to anyone. ~Faustine. From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 15:12:45 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:12:45 -0400 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <200108252135.f7PLZMf09568@slack.lne.com> References: <20010825164536.C18435@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825180304.02132ab0@mail.well.com> At 02:33 PM 8/25/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >As we've discussed before (and Declan is in agreement), the First >Amendment doesn't give some specific class of people ("reporters") special >rights not held by everyone. Right. Especially nowadays, anyone can be a reporter/commentator. I do encourage Tim to apply for CFP press credentials and report back on what happens. I suspect most folks on the program committee are at least passingly familiar with what he's written, so he should get the most receptive audience possible. >_Some_ states have passed what I think are wholly unconstitutional "shield >laws" conferring special privileges on officially-recognized journalists >and reporters. Some states do not have such shield laws. I don't know what >laws Washington state has. My understanding is that it doesn't matter since U.S. v. Jim Bell was a federal prosecution. >The whole notion that Declan is an Official Reporter but that John Young >is not stinks. And if John Young is a reporter, with special rights to not >reveal his sources or contacts, then so is Tim May. I agree that John Young should be considered a reporter. And also a commentator, which falls under the journalism umbrella: John and I both spoke at a conference organized by a journalist-1A group, the Freedom Forum, in NYC. John spoke last week at Usenix Security in DC. John now seems to be saying anything-you-tell-me-will-be-disclosed, but in the past he's offered guarantees of confidentiality (as I do with news tips) to people who provide him with documents to post on cryptome. Many cryptome items are marked as "provided by anonymous." If John gets a subpoena, surely he doesn't mean he'll spill his guts to prosecutors without a fight? If he doesn't stand by cryptome's apparent promises of confidentiality, he should clarify that immediately and publicly. Anyway, I do think the scope of civil and criminal discovery is too broad. Still, I think it's possible to differentiate between people involved or suspected of being involved in a criminal act (Clinton, Tripp, Condit, perhaps Vinnie, in your example) and neutral observers and commentators. >I doubt that "a reporter's First Amendment rights" entered into the >calculation in a primary way (though perhaps in a secondary way, as it was >a potential can of worms not worth opening for the limited probative value >of Declan's remembrances of a phone conversation.) Maybe, maybe not. You should read our briefs. See below. -Declan A. The Burden Imposed By Subpoenas Such As The One At Issue Here Has Caused The Courts To Extend The Privilege To Unpublished Information In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 707 (1972), the United States Supreme Court recognized that journalists' newsgathering activities qualify for protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court concluded that "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated." Id. at 681. Justice Powell, in casting the deciding fifth vote, stated that "[t]he Court does not hold that newsmen, subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, are without constitutional rights with respect to the gathering of news or in the safeguarding of their sources." Id. at 709 (Powell, J., concurring). Although the Court did not permit the reporters in the Branzburg case to refuse to appear and testify before grand juries, federal courts have interpreted Branzburg as recognizing a qualified privilege that protects information gathered by journalists in preparation for new s reports, but which has not been published. See, e.g., Cuthbertson I, 630 F.2d at 146-47; Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 143 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. LaRouche Campaign, 841 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (1st Cir. 1988). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recognized this First Amendment privilege in the context of criminal proceedings, Farr v. Pitchess, 522 F.2d 464, 467-68 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912 (1976), and has held that the privilege protects unpublished information, even if it is not obtained under an agreement of confidentiality, Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Shoen I"). A court must weigh any claim of First Amendment privilege against the need for disclosure and strike a balance in favor of the "paramount interest." Farr, 522 F.2d at 468. The Ninth Circuit explained in Shoen I that "the privilege is a recognition that society's interest in protecting the integrity of the newsgathering process, and in ensuring the free flow of information to the public, is an interest 'of sufficient social importance to justify some incidental sacrifice of sources of facts needed in the administration of justice.'" 5 F.3d at 1292 (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 183 (Brennan, J., dissenting).). Protection of unpublished information is critical to freedom of speech, even where it is not gained under a promise of confidentiality, because routine demands for such information in court will interfere with journalists' work and independence. The Ninth Circuit stated: "The . . . four interests named are the threat of administrative and judicial intrusion into the newsgathering and editorial process; the disadvantage of a journalist appearing to be an investigative arm of the judicial system or a research tool of government or of a private party; the disincentive to compile and preserve non-broadcast material; and the burden on journalists' time and resources in responding to subpoenas." . . . To the extent that compelled disclosure becomes commonplace, it seems likely indeed that internal policies of destruction of materials may be devised and choices as to subject matter made, which could be keyed to avoiding disclosure requests or compliance therewith rather than to the basic function of providing news and comment. In addition, frequency of subpoenas would not only preempt the otherwise productive time of journalists and other employees but measurably increase expenditures for legal fees. Id. at 1294-95 (quoting LaRouche Campaign, 841 F.2d at 1182). The Ninth Circuit concluded that requiring journalists to testify impedes their ability to collect information, and thereby chills speech. "It is their independent status that often enables reporters to gain access, without a pledge of confidentiality, to meetings or places where a policeman or a politician would not be welcome. If perceived as an adjunct of the police or of the courts, journalists might well be shunned by persons who might otherwise give them information without a promise of confidentiality, barred from meetings which they would otherwise be free to attend and to describe, or even physically harassed if, for example, observed taking notes or photographs at a public rally. Id. at 1295 (quoting Duane D. Morse & John W. Zucker, The Journalist's Privilege in Testimonial Privileges (Scott N. Stone & Ronald S. Liebman eds., 1983), at 474-75). The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in Cuthbertson, a criminal case: We do not think that the privilege can be limited solely to protection of sources. The compelled production of a reporter's resource materials can constitute a significant intrusion into the newsgathering and editorial processes. See Loadholtz v. Fields, 389 F. Supp. 1299, 1303 (M.D. Fla. 1975). Like the compelled disclosure of confidential sources, it may substantially undercut the public policy favoring the free flow of information to the public that is the foundation for the privilege. See Riley v. City of Chester, [612 F.2d 708, 716 (3d Cir. 1979)]. Therefore, we hold that the privilege extends to unpublished materials in the possession of CBS. See Altemose Construction Co. v. Building & Construction Trades Council, 443 F. Supp. 489, 491 (E.D. Pa. 1977) ("this qualified privilege can even apply when the news source and, perhaps, a portion of the withheld writing, are not confidential"). Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d at 147. Democracy's keystone is the dissemination of information to the public, permitting it to make informed choices. This dissemination depends on journalists who are successful in gathering facts, and that, in turn, depends on sources who will not disclose information unless they believe they are dealing with professionals who are trustworthy and objective. By compelling a journalist to disclose work product whenever a litigant views it as helpful to his or her case, a court sacrifices the very First Amendment freedoms that keep our nation informed and our government accountable. B. The First Amendment Privilege Can Be Overcome In Only The Most Limited Of Circumstances Recognizing the threat that compulsory disclosure of work product posed to the uninhibited flow of information, the Ninth Circuit adopted a three-part test that courts must apply whenever a journalist withholds unpublished information that was not gained under a promise of confidentiality. The test's purpose, the court explained, was to "ensure that compelled disclosure is the exception, not the rule." Shoen v. Shoen, 48 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Shoen II"). We . . . hold that where information sought is not confidential, a civil litigant is entitled to requested discovery notwithstanding a valid assertion of the journalist's privilege by a nonparty only upon a showing that the requested material is: (1) unavailable despite exhaustion of all reasonable alternative sources; (2) noncumulative; and (3) clearly relevant to an important issue in the case. We note that there must be a showing of actual relevance; a showing of potential relevance will not suffice. Id. Although the Ninth Circuit has not had the opportunity to apply the three-part test of Shoen II in a criminal case, the Third Circuit has adopted a nearly identical test and applied it to a criminal subpoena that sought unpublished, nonconfidential information: "First, the movant must demonstrate that he has made an effort to obtain the information from other sources. Second, he must demonstrate that the only access to the information sought is through the journalist and her sources. Finally, the movant must persuade the Court that the information sought is crucial to the claim." United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189, 195-96 (3d Cir.) ("Cuthbertson II") (quoting United States v. Criden, 633 F.2d 346, 358-59 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 113 (1981)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1056 (1981). Application of the First Amendment privilege in a criminal proceeding is just as important as in a civil context. As the Second Circuit held in United States v. Burke, 700 F.2d 70, 76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 816 (1983): "[T]he important social interests in the free flow of information that are protected by the reporter's qualified privilege are particularly compelling in criminal cases. Reporters are to be encouraged to investigate and expose, free from unnecessary government intrusion, evidence of criminal wrongdoing." From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 18:32:23 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:32:23 -0700 Subject: Anonymous Posting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108260134.f7Q1Yaf10599@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 04:47 PM, Anonymous wrote: > Faustine wrote: >> I think you mainly have your bloomers in a bunch because I told your >> anonymous ass-kiss toady to get a spine. > > Why Faustine, you sound jealous! I'm flattered you hold my views in > such high regard. > > I like Tim's posts for several reasons. They are to the point and > often cut through nonsense. They usually have new facts or a new way > to look at something which makes sense, but which I didn't think of > already. And some times they are just entertaining. > > Most importantly, they don't waste my time. > > I'm not too delighted with the "I have friends who want to kill all > Jews" type of remarks, but beggars can't be choosers. I don't recall the context, but I don't have any such friends or even acquaintances. Even those I know on the Far Right don't want to kill _all_ Jews, just the pesky freedom-stealing ones, and the millions who form the Zionist Occupation Government in the Zionist Entity of ZOG-Occupied Palestine. I personally expect the non-Arabs who live in ZOG-Occupied Palestine to eventually be given the choice to escape by hanging off the landing skids of the U.S. choppers sent in to evacuate Americans or to be disposed of by the millions. No matter their U.S.-funded weaponry, heavy artillery and jets just aren't terribly useful in such close quarters and with the willingness by many Palestinians to sacrifice themselves. Add nerve gases and biological agents to the mix over the next several years. And I won't shed a tear, as those who left New York and Oslo and Berlin and Phoenix to go to some tiny patch of land which they claim YHWH the Terrible granted to the sons of a desert minor potentate--this all revealed in a hash dream by an old man, allegedly--well, they were fools in 1948 to kick Arabs off of their farms and out of their homes. The Jews will suffer mightily. Which might be all they really want, oy vey! And I know many people who support, as I do of course, the right of Aryan Nation(s) to do their thing without lawsuits from offended Jews and liberals. Last I heard, Aryan Nation(s) was not building any gas chambers. Shutting down the "organization" due to, for example, the murder of Allan Berg in Denver makes no more moral or legal sense than shutting down the Catholics because some Catholics have bombed abortion clinics. Confusing the above sentiments with being a Nazi or Neo-Nazi is a common mistake, though. I value the literature I have from "Jews for the Protection of Firearms Rights," so not _all_ Jews are necessarily leftist simp-wimps like Feinstein, Boxer, Lieberman, and all of the Hollywood Jews who rail about how anti-Semitic the Arabs are (yeah, right). Just most of them. I attribute a lot of the cultural problems with Jews and their respect for libertarian values to be caused by millennia of their confinement in cramped Jewish ghettoes, their unwillingness to venture far from other Jews (thus meaning a minion cannot be formed), and their focus on that most highly-legalistic of all religious books, the Torah. Way too many good brains went into studying the minutiae of some dusty books written by some desert mystics. The Jews lacked their equivalent of a Reformation, the Lutheran and Calvinist revolution in thinking which laid the groundwork for the modern age. And instead of moving on, embracing the future, many of them retreated to a desert land they thought of as their historic homeland, never mind that more Polish blood flowed through the veins of Jews born in Krakow than blood from their ancestors who fled or otherwise left Palestine 1500 or more years ago. By the way, there is much scholarship pointing to King David actually being a fairly minor princeling in the Jerusalem area. As the pseudonymous authors of the Pentateuch wrote that part of what Chrisitians call the Old Testament, much of the lineage was invented out of whole cloth and the whole mythology of the line of descendants of Abraham (who may or may not have existed, but certainly not in the way portrayed) was devised to make the subfaction tracing their lineage to "King David" look more important. The authors of the Pentateuch also apparently wove in a bunch of Babylonian creation myths they picked up during their years as slaves in Babylon. And yet many of them cling to the fairy tale that "YHWH promised us this land. Hence the Arab must be driven into the sea. I don't care too much if Arabs and Jews are killing each other, but I hate like hell to see taxpayer money and armaments shipped to ZOG-Occupied Palestine to help kill more Arabs and expand ZOG borders. And I am offended--but also amused--by the irony of European Jews recapitulating Hitler's "lebensraum" and "Endlosung" solutions so soon after WW II ended. People carp about Tim, but I'd like to see anybody try to do one Tim > May quality post every day for two weeks. > Thanks, even if you're a Jew-lover. --Tim May From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sat Aug 25 09:41:23 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:41:23 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. If this supposed to have been deterrence, it fully backfired. It introduced polarization, and makes acts as Mc Veigh's less loony. As a direct result of this decision people will get killed eventually. From jya at pipeline.com Sat Aug 25 18:44:52 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:44:52 -0700 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825180304.02132ab0@mail.well.com> References: <200108252135.f7PLZMf09568@slack.lne.com> <20010825164536.C18435@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108252252.SAA03629@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Sure, Declan, I think it would have been a big boost to your rep and career, and the object of my envy, if you had been sent to jail for resisting London but your luck wasn't good that day, or the Snoozing Judge never heard your "fuck you Jack." Again, you are not the target of my spillover anger about the Bell lynching. You got deeper into that tarpit than most of us, having now been yanked into court twice for Jim and CJ. Better luck next time being newsworthy -- aint that better than faint-praising newsmakers? 60 Minutes said Shithead Tanner would not allow an interview with Bell until after the sentencing. I wonder if Mike Wallace will contemn the USA/court shenanigans with a deep and full report, not just toy with Jim as a homeboy-terrorist. From remailer at remailer.xganon.com Sat Aug 25 16:47:36 2001 From: remailer at remailer.xganon.com (Anonymous) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:47:36 -0500 Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: Faustine wrote: > I think you mainly have your bloomers in a bunch because I told your > anonymous ass-kiss toady to get a spine. Why Faustine, you sound jealous! I'm flattered you hold my views in such high regard. I like Tim's posts for several reasons. They are to the point and often cut through nonsense. They usually have new facts or a new way to look at something which makes sense, but which I didn't think of already. And some times they are just entertaining. Most importantly, they don't waste my time. I'm not too delighted with the "I have friends who want to kill all Jews" type of remarks, but beggars can't be choosers. People carp about Tim, but I'd like to see anybody try to do one Tim May quality post every day for two weeks. From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 18:49:21 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:49:21 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108260151.f7Q1pSf10721@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 06:39 PM, Jim Windle wrote: > On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:29:21 Tim May wrote: > >> >> I can think of some scientists who had enormous influences on policy, >> men like Szilard, Von Neumann, Fermi, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Teller, >> and >> a bunch of others > > As an addendum I would add Claude Shannon. In fact I can't think of a > single lawyer in the 20th century who had the long term influesnce on > society that either Shannon or von Neumann did. The list of other > influential non-lawyers might also be expanded to include Turing, > Godel, von Braun, Crick and Watson. Washington's myopia in thinking > olny lawyers are worth listening to is indicative of the type of > government we have. > Well, yes, there are many. I only even _tried_ to list a handful of the most important folks in just that one field: nuclear. Every field has its giants. And the ones I cited in just the nuclear field were not just scientists, they were policy advisors. Szilard's soliciting of Einstein to write the letter to Roosevelt, Einstein's letter, Fermi's policy work in the 1950s, Teller's lobbying for the H-bomb, Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project (and later antiwar lobbying), and Von Neumann's powerful arguments for building up the nuclear arsenal. (VN favored a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia with bombers.) The other examples (we could write all day listing such giants) were certainly scientists, but many had no interest whatsoever in policy. Kurt Godel, for example. Crick, as another. I don't recall Shannon having much interest in policy. Washington _does_ listen to other than lawyers. The examples I gave showed this to be true in the past, and almost certainly still true. (And the SDI arguments were in many cases made by scientists, e.g., Teller, Lowell Wood, etc.) --Tim May From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sat Aug 25 21:54:23 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:54:23 -1000 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108252034.f7PKYdf09267@slack.lne.com> References: <20010825162122.A18435@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010825185134.02b0e440@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 13:32 8/25/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 01:21 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> Tim, if you don't want to pay the admission fee, why don't you go as a >> journalist/columnist/commentator? It'll help you get started down the >> pundit circuit. :) > >Fine. I already write for this mailing list (and my stuff gets forwarded >to other lists whether I like it or not). Hi there. ;) You write good things, sometimes. Do you think your animated shout should be denied the ears of others beyond the distance your voice will carry? >And even put in books already published or about to be published. I haven't gone there. I doubt that I ever will. >So I'm already a writer. Not in that sense. >I'll contact the CFP organizers and ask for one of their hundreds of >free passes to the panels, talks, and banquets. That's the spirit! Reese From juicy at melontraffickers.com Sat Aug 25 19:08:23 2001 From: juicy at melontraffickers.com (A. Melon) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:08:23 -0700 Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: Faustine wrote: > I think you mainly have your bloomers in a bunch because I told your > anonymous ass-kiss toady to get a spine. Why Faustine, you sound jealous! I'm flattered you hold my views in such high regard. I like Tim's posts for several reasons. They are to the point and often cut through nonsense. They usually have new facts or a new way to look at something which makes sense, but which I didn't think of already. And some times they are just entertaining. Most importantly, they don't waste my time. I'm not too delighted with the "I have friends who want to kill all Jews" type of remarks, but beggars can't be choosers. People carp about Tim, but I'd like to see anybody try to do one Tim May quality post every day for two weeks. From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 19:25:30 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:25:30 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108260227.f7Q2Rnf10988@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 06:52 PM, dmolnar wrote: > [on the PET 2002 workshop] >> I'm skeptical. I haven't looked in detail at this one, but the one >> Choate forwarded twice to the list was filled with corporate folks on >> the committees. (Some of whom used to be list subscribers. Fine folks, >> I'm sure, but now it's a corporate task for them to on committees.) > > I think that all three refer to the same workshop. > > I'm not sure I understand this comment, though. Do you think that the > committee members are doing it solely because it's a "corporate task" > which they have been ordered to do? or that they've lost interest in the > research now that it is a "corporate task" to be on the program > committee? What exactly is the problem with "corporate folks"? > > I can't claim to speak for the committee members. From what I know of > the > co-chairs, however, they are not doing this simply because it is a > "corporate task." Both of them have been interested in this area for as > long as I've known them. As far as I can tell, their interest is > genuine. My point maybe didn't come across as clearly as it could (hey, even typing fast, it's a lot of work to make all points come out clearly, and the more I write, the more chance for unclear sections). The core technologies for "P.E.T." are basically what we've talking about, coding, and using for close to the past 10 years. Little is coming out of corporations. Even less from academia. More I started to write on this, but have deleted. If people want to hear the German academics talk about privacy technology, fine. Frankly, having been at my share of all-day Cypherpunks meetings, I doubt a 1.5-day workshop on what are essentially Cypherpunks tools is going to accomplish much. (What might? Putting several of the main architects of competing systems like Freedom, Mojo, Morpheus, Mixmaster, etc. together in a room with plenty of blackboards, a lot of beer, and some folks like Lucky, Wei Dai, Hal Finney, and others to hash out some of the tough issues and maybe catalyze some breakthroughs. Looking at the topics, I see the likely paper contributors will be academics and corporate ladder-climbers.) > > Now, it *is* being run as a straight-up academic workshop, with > Springer-Verlag proceedings, refereed papers, and that whole nine yards. > This has certain disadvantages. Long lead times between genesis of an > idea > and publication (not to *mention* implementation), for one. Arguably too > much emphasis on theory and citations rather than just "cypherpunks > write > code," for another. You can go after it on those grounds (and we can > argue > about that for another four or five messages if you want), but that > seems > to be distinct from talking about "corporate folks" on the program > committee -- have I missed something? This point you raise fits in closely with the names on the program list. As with Financial Cryptography and Information-Hiding, the field has become sort of "respectable." So now we have the Dutch Data Protection Authority and the Independent Centre for Privacy Protection and some universities represented so well. (It's actually just part of the sham of these conferences. These are not conferences where innovative _research_ is discussed. These are places where somebody's particular twist on other ideas, ideas which would barely rate a thread here on these mailing lists, is puffed out into an academic-looking paper.) > > It's my hope that workshops like this will help attract smart people to > work on the problems in remailers, implementing digital cash, and other > fun Cypherpunkish topics. People who've never even heard of > "Cypherpunks," > and who would otherwise go off and do number theory or something else. Look, people not already involved in this area won't spend $$$ going early to SF and paying for this workshop. You'll likely get some drones from Motorola and Intel who convince their bosses that this sounds important, and you'll get some Feds and other spooks who go to get up to speed on what to look for. If you think this is "outreach" for Cypherpunks, where are the Cypherpunks on the program committee. I count one, maybe 1.5 if Lance is still doing this stuff (last I heard, he wasn't, and he hasn't posted here in a very, very long time). The rest are academics and staid corporate types. I'll bet they'll quash any papers dealing with using crypto to undermine governments. It sounds pretty creepy to me. No doubt a lot of journalists will cover it. Most of them comped, no doubt. --Tim May From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sun Aug 26 00:11:27 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:11:27 -1000 Subject: Anonymous Posting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010825210529.02b15ef0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 18:47 8/25/2001 -0500, Anonymous wrote: >I'm not too delighted with the "I have friends who want to kill all >Jews" type of remarks, but beggars can't be choosers. > >People carp about Tim, but I'd like to see anybody try to do one Tim >May quality post every day for two weeks. Including the "I have friends who want to kill all the Jews" type of remarks? GIGO, yada. It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as you sort of noted. Reese From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sun Aug 26 00:23:16 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:23:16 -1000 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108252331.f7PNVTf10146@slack.lne.com> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010825211412.00b008b0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 16:29 8/25/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 02:46 PM, Faustine wrote: >> True, if you don't pick your program carefully, it's entirely too >> possible to end up with a nebulous grab bag of an education that >> doesn't amount to much. What better, to illustrate one simple point? It isn't what you know, it is who you know. Deja vu all over again. >The children shall lead us... Oh God. Not another Children's Crusade. For the Children. *retch* Reese From convention at jagnik.com Sat Aug 25 21:29:43 2001 From: convention at jagnik.com (JAGnik) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:29:43 -0700 Subject: JAG: The Show, The Cast and Crew, The Convention Message-ID: <20010826043010.B346323CC@merlin.eagleendeavors.net> PRESS RELEASE Date: August 19, 2001 Organization: JAGnik Association PO Box 2000 Florence, Arizona 85232-2000 Contact: Barbara Badeaux Convention Coordinator Phone: (520) 868-1994 Email: Convention at JAGniik.com Web Site: www.JAGnik.com "JAG" Fans Worldwide Gather To Celebrate The Hit TV Series Florence, AZ, August 19, 2001 - On October 12th through the 15th at the Four Points Sheraton LAX in Los Angeles join die-hard JAGnik fans from the United States, Australia, Denmark, England, Italy and elsewhere to meet the stars and celebrate their enthusiasm for the hit TV series, "JAG," the story of the United States Navy's Judge Advocate General's program, at the JAGnik Invasion 2001. For six years and running, JAG, the overwhelmingly popular CBS television military drama has riveted millions of diehard viewers to their seats with outstanding programming. Terrorism, rape, murder, UFO's, women's rights, the Gulf War - JAG tackles them all like no other TV series has ever done. Now meet the stars, directors, writers, get autographs, and find out how they do it. If you are JAG fan, you can't miss this! The JAGnik 2001 convention - the 2nd one of its kind -- will host panel discussions with the cast and crew of JAG, as well as autograph sessions, a charity auction, and a "Charity Brunch" with the stars of one of the most popular programs ever produced. JAG's "Top Gun" stars are expected to be there. Heartthrobs David James Elliot as Lt. Cmdr Harmon Rabb, Jr. and Catherine Bell as Lt. Colonel Sarah "Mac" MacKenzie, who portray military legal eagles who investigate, prosecute, and defend Navy and Marine personnel around the world. Together with Patrick Labyorteaux (Lt. Bud Roberts, Jr.), John M. Jackson (Admiral, former Navy SEAL, Chegwidden), Karri Turner (Lt. jg Harriet Sims), Randy Vasquez (Gunny Victor Valendiz), Chuck Carrington (PO3 Tiner), and Trevor Goddard (Mic Brumbly) the lawyers explore issues facing today's military personnel. Schedules permitting, many of them plan to be there for you to meet. Meet people behind the cameras - writers, production staff - along with recurring stars and occasional guests too. Participate in panel discussions. Let them tell you how JAG develops from an idea into a one-hour action packed finished product. The autograph sessions, auction, and brunch will give the fans a chance to get to know and talk with the stars who portray their favorite characters. Go to on site locations where it really happens. Jagnik Invasion 2001 will be held October 12 - 15 at the Four Points Sheraton LAX in Los Angeles, CA. Information about the convention can be found at our website, www.JAGnik.com or by calling Barbara Badeaux at (520) 868-1994, or writing JAGnik Association, PO Box 2000, Florence, Arizona 85232-2000. We comply with proposed federal legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail by providing you with a method for your e-mail address to be permanently removed from our database and any future mailings from our company. To remove your address from our mailing database please click the following link http://www.jagnik.com/remove.asp?address=cypherpunks at toad.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3982 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim_windle at eudoramail.com Sat Aug 25 18:39:11 2001 From: jim_windle at eudoramail.com (Jim Windle) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:39:11 -0400 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:29:21 Tim May wrote: > >I can think of some scientists who had enormous influences on policy, >men like Szilard, Von Neumann, Fermi, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Teller, and >a bunch of others As an addendum I would add Claude Shannon. In fact I can't think of a single lawyer in the 20th century who had the long term influesnce on society that either Shannon or von Neumann did. The list of other influential non-lawyers might also be expanded to include Turing, Godel, von Braun, Crick and Watson. Washington's myopia in thinking olny lawyers are worth listening to is indicative of the type of government we have. Jim Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu Sat Aug 25 18:52:20 2001 From: dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu (dmolnar) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108252027.f7PKRmf09204@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > The hard part is getting beyond the canned speeches. For one thing, > these people (the SF writers especially!) are used to people running up > to them at SF conferences babbling to them about some story idea, so > they "put their shields up." I suspect I'm guilty of doing this. Not just at SF conferences. (Actually, I've been to too few SF conferences.) > This is one of the main reasons I favor "relaxicons." In SF circles, > these are, as you probably know, small cons with very few scheduled I'm just learning. I missed out on most of this "growing up," first being out of the country and then off in New Hampshire. Something to fix soon. Especially since you can meet interesting people at cons. (The con I mentioned, by the way, is http://www.vericon.org/ in case anyone's wondering. ) [on the PET 2002 workshop] > I'm skeptical. I haven't looked in detail at this one, but the one > Choate forwarded twice to the list was filled with corporate folks on > the committees. (Some of whom used to be list subscribers. Fine folks, > I'm sure, but now it's a corporate task for them to on committees.) I think that all three refer to the same workshop. I'm not sure I understand this comment, though. Do you think that the committee members are doing it solely because it's a "corporate task" which they have been ordered to do? or that they've lost interest in the research now that it is a "corporate task" to be on the program committee? What exactly is the problem with "corporate folks"? I can't claim to speak for the committee members. From what I know of the co-chairs, however, they are not doing this simply because it is a "corporate task." Both of them have been interested in this area for as long as I've known them. As far as I can tell, their interest is genuine. Now, it *is* being run as a straight-up academic workshop, with Springer-Verlag proceedings, refereed papers, and that whole nine yards. This has certain disadvantages. Long lead times between genesis of an idea and publication (not to *mention* implementation), for one. Arguably too much emphasis on theory and citations rather than just "cypherpunks write code," for another. You can go after it on those grounds (and we can argue about that for another four or five messages if you want), but that seems to be distinct from talking about "corporate folks" on the program committee -- have I missed something? It's my hope that workshops like this will help attract smart people to work on the problems in remailers, implementing digital cash, and other fun Cypherpunkish topics. People who've never even heard of "Cypherpunks," and who would otherwise go off and do number theory or something else. > I have another rant in mind, a rant about "affiliations." I'll just play > the script and you can figure out what the rant is about: [script and rant skipped] When my family lived in Saudi Arabia, we had our passports covered with a sticker which identified which company we were from. No foreigners in the country without a sponsor. The rant about "affiliations" reminds me very much of that... From convention at jagnik.com Sat Aug 25 21:53:17 2001 From: convention at jagnik.com (JAGnik) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:53:17 -0700 Subject: JAG: The Show, The Cast and Crew, The Convention Message-ID: <20010826045345.2C4BE6FBE@merlin.eagleendeavors.net> PRESS RELEASE Date: August 19, 2001 Organization: JAGnik Association PO Box 2000 Florence, Arizona 85232-2000 Contact: Barbara Badeaux Convention Coordinator Phone: (520) 868-1994 Email: Convention at JAGniik.com Web Site: www.JAGnik.com "JAG" Fans Worldwide Gather To Celebrate The Hit TV Series Florence, AZ, August 19, 2001 - On October 12th through the 15th at the Four Points Sheraton LAX in Los Angeles join die-hard JAGnik fans from the United States, Australia, Denmark, England, Italy and elsewhere to meet the stars and celebrate their enthusiasm for the hit TV series, "JAG," the story of the United States Navy's Judge Advocate General's program, at the JAGnik Invasion 2001. For six years and running, JAG, the overwhelmingly popular CBS television military drama has riveted millions of diehard viewers to their seats with outstanding programming. Terrorism, rape, murder, UFO's, women's rights, the Gulf War - JAG tackles them all like no other TV series has ever done. Now meet the stars, directors, writers, get autographs, and find out how they do it. If you are JAG fan, you can't miss this! The JAGnik 2001 convention - the 2nd one of its kind -- will host panel discussions with the cast and crew of JAG, as well as autograph sessions, a charity auction, and a "Charity Brunch" with the stars of one of the most popular programs ever produced. JAG's "Top Gun" stars are expected to be there. Heartthrobs David James Elliot as Lt. Cmdr Harmon Rabb, Jr. and Catherine Bell as Lt. Colonel Sarah "Mac" MacKenzie, who portray military legal eagles who investigate, prosecute, and defend Navy and Marine personnel around the world. Together with Patrick Labyorteaux (Lt. Bud Roberts, Jr.), John M. Jackson (Admiral, former Navy SEAL, Chegwidden), Karri Turner (Lt. jg Harriet Sims), Randy Vasquez (Gunny Victor Valendiz), Chuck Carrington (PO3 Tiner), and Trevor Goddard (Mic Brumbly) the lawyers explore issues facing today's military personnel. Schedules permitting, many of them plan to be there for you to meet. Meet people behind the cameras - writers, production staff - along with recurring stars and occasional guests too. Participate in panel discussions. Let them tell you how JAG develops from an idea into a one-hour action packed finished product. The autograph sessions, auction, and brunch will give the fans a chance to get to know and talk with the stars who portray their favorite characters. Go to on site locations where it really happens. Jagnik Invasion 2001 will be held October 12 - 15 at the Four Points Sheraton LAX in Los Angeles, CA. Information about the convention can be found at our website, www.JAGnik.com or by calling Barbara Badeaux at (520) 868-1994, or writing JAGnik Association, PO Box 2000, Florence, Arizona 85232-2000. We comply with proposed federal legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail by providing you with a method for your e-mail address to be permanently removed from our database and any future mailings from our company. To remove your address from our mailing database please click the following link http://www.jagnik.com/remove.asp?address=cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3982 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Sat Aug 25 21:56:19 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:56:19 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <20010825232543.B21878@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108260458.f7Q4wdf11683@slack.lne.com> I'm writing a lot today. These last several days, actually. Maybe I got enough sleep, maybe the debate about how CFP has been taken over by the droids is inspiring me, maybe it's because I can't wait until I can get these drawings (talked about later) up on my soon-to-appear "virtual whiteboard" Web site. Whatever, what follows here (I'm writing this intro last) is probably one of the most important essays I've written in recent months. If most of you disgree, I'll know I'm truly out of touch. On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 08:25 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 05:44:39PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> I won't pay these rates for _any_ conference. Greg Broiles hit the nail >> on the head: the only ones worth paying for are the ones with >> short-term >> economic payoff. For CFP, this probably means law firms hoping to get >> some business, or hoping to recruit some lawyers. > > CFP is still worth attending, but more as a social event nowadays. > It's started to become a corporate-privacy-officer conference. I was > chatting two weeks ago with a friend who's a CPO at one of the > valley's largest firms and my friend was talking about suggesting a > panel on "how firms can comply with european data directive stuff." > Not unimportant in a practical sense, but hardly interesting, or > cypherpunkish. So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be well-received: "BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets." The whole notion of "Chief Privacy Officers" shows how ridiculous things have become. For several obvious reasons we've talked about many times. (And the notion that companies like ZKS will survive by reinventing themselve as privacy consultants to comply with privacy laws is equally silly. Hint: Whatever companies need to meet privacy "laws" in Europe, Asia, and North America doesn't have much to do with PipeNets and extremely robust systems for high-bandwidth communication.) But I guess the vanished occupations of "Web Master" and "Web Mistress" had to morph into something equally silly. PLOTTING THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF UNTRACEABILITY Look, this is all part of something I talked about at the June physical meeting in Berkeley: by failing to acknowledge the "high-value" markets for untraceability, characterized by such things as Swiss bank accounts and income-hiding, porn-trading rings, and information markets, the whole technology of privacy/untraceability gets ghettoized into low-value markets like "untraceable subway tokens" (wow, gee!), weak versions of proxy surfing tools, and boring attempts to get people to use digital money for things they don't mind using Visa and PayPal for. At the June meeting I drew a graph which makes the point clearly. A pity I can't draw it here. (Yeah, there are ways. My new Web page should have some drawings soon. But this list is about ASCII.) Plot "Value of Being Untraceable in a Transaction" on the X-axis. This is the perceived _value_ of being untraceable or private. Start with "little or nothing," proceed to "about a dollar" then to "hundreds of dollars" then to "thousands" then to "tens of thousands and more." (The value of being untraceable is also the cost of getting caught: getting caught plotting the overthrow of the Crown Prince of Abu Fukyou, being outed by a corporation in a lawsuit, being audited by the IRS and them finding evaded taxes, having the cops find a cache of snuff films on your hard disk, and so on.) Some examples: People will demonstrably get on planes and fly to the Cayman Islands to open bank accounts offering them untraceability (of a certain kind). It is demonstrably worth it to them to pay thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars to set up shell accounts, dummy corporations, Swiss bank accounts, etc. For whatever various and sundry reasons. (They may be Panamanian dictators, they may be Get Rich Quick scamsters, they may be spies within the FBI or CIA.) They expect a "value of untraceability" to be high, in the tens or hundreds of thousands...or even much higher. Even their lives. Call this the "Over $100K" regime. I cite this because it disputes directly the popular slogans: "People won't pay anything for privacy or untraceability." (In fact, people pay quite large sums for privacy and untraceability. Ask Hollywood or corporate bigshots what they pay not to be traced.) People will also pay money not to be traceable in gambling situations. They gamble with bookies, they fly to offshore gambling havens, and so on. The _value_ to them is high, but not at the level above. If they're caught, they face tax evasion charges, maybe. Call this the "$1K-10K" regime. (The spread is wide, from low-rent bookie bets which even the IRS probably doesn't care much about to schemes to avoid large amounts of tax.) At lesser levels, some choose to pay cash for their video tape rentals (with deposits arranged) just to avoid leaving a paper trail. (Bet Justice Thomas wishes he had.) And then at very low levels there are the cases where the benefits of untraceability are worth little or nothing to most people. I call this the "millicent ghetto." Actually, the ghetto begins down at around a dollar or less. Sadly, a huge number of the proposed "untraceable digital cash" systems are targetted at uses deep down in this ghetto. (Perhaps because they have no hint of illegality?) On the Y-axis. Plot here the _costs_ of achieving untraceability for these levels of achieved. This is the cost of tools, of using the tools, of delays caused by the tools, etc. For example, flying to the Cayman Islands to personally open a bank account may cost a couple of days in time, the airfare, and (more nebulously) the possible cost of having one's photograph taken for future use upon boarding that plan for Switzerland or the Caymans. Lesser costs, but still costs, would be the costs of using Freedom (much frustration, say most of my friends who have tried to use it), the costs of getting a Mark Twain Bank digital cash account and actually having it work the way it should, and just the overhead/costs of using PGP. Now on this X-Y graph plot the "blobs" where benefit/cost clouds of points are found. The 45-degree line is where the "costs" equal the "benefits." (These values change somewhat in time, of course, but the general point is still clear I expect.) Anything _below_ this 45-degree line is "cost effective": benefits > costs. Anything _above_ this line is NOT cost-effective: costs > benefits. (In the economics of black markets, or illegal activities, we can expand these terms a bit. For example, "costs = costs of being caught x chance of being caught." An illegal action which will result in a $100K fine but which is only expected to be caught 1% of the time has a resultant cost of $1K. This is the "expected cost." Obviously, the idea of crypto and untracebility tools is to alter the equation by reducing the chance of being caught.) RATIONAL ACTORS The obvious point is that rational actors never pay more for untraceability than they get back in perceived benefits. Someone will not pay $1000 for privacy/untraceability technology or tools that only nets them $500 in perceived benefits. They won't spend $1.00 in tools to net them 10 cents in perceived benefits. THE SWEET SPOT The "sweet spot" for privacy/untraceability tools is out of the "millicent ghetto" so much of the focus has beenon, and is even out of the "private Web surfing to avoid company tracing" ghetto, roughly at the tens of dollars levels. (It is hard to imagine how the "cost" of having Pillsbury know your baked good preferences is more than some trivial amount. This is the "ghetto" of low value transactions. However, not having the FBI know your are interested in "Lolita" images can be worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of avoided jail time, fines, loss of employability, etc. (Do I think many pedophiles will, accordingly, pay hundreds of thousands for technologies to make them untraceable? Of course not, for reason psychologists are familiar with. But they'll pay some amount, and that amount may dwarf the aggregate value of what all of the "millicent ghetto" dwellers will pay. Interestingly, ZKS Freedom as ORIGINALLY SPECCED would have provide this "pedophile-grade untraceabilty" (to coin a phrase). Does it now? I don't think so, from what I hear from Wei Dai, Lucky Green, and from words coming out of ZKS. Apparently they are not planning to focus on these "high value" areas.) Things start to get "interesting" at the thousands of dollars for tools for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits. (By the way, the same applies to crypto per se. The military has "crypto specialists" and "crypto shacks" on board ships. But these cost a lot of money in training, procedures, and equipment. Millions of dollars a year for a ship, for example. Do the math. Real crypto is more than just strength of algorithms and keys: it's this economic trade-off. Too much of "why don't people use crypto more?" whines fails to see this basic point.) The "sweet spot" often, practically by definition, involves putatively illegal activities: child porn, plotting revolution in Saudi Arabia, selling corporate secrets, distributing banned materials, etc. Only in these situations are the "costs of failure to be untraceable" high enough to make spending money and time learning to be untraceable worthwhile. It is not surprising that "those with nothing to hide" tend to put their money into their local bank branches under their own names while "those with something to hide" tend to open Swiss bank accounts. Again, draw this region as a blob far to the right on the X-axis and, we hope, not very high up on the Y-axis. Meaning, advances in crypto, remailers, digital money, etc. will make this "sweet spot" truly sweet. CORPORATIONS AND ACADEMICS FOCUS ON THE "GHETTO" NEAR THE ORIGIN Still, corporations and academics focus on the "near the origin" blobs: millicent payment schemes, slight Web surfing untraceability tricks, subway tokens, etc. Because to focus on the real sweet spot is to admit to working on crypto anarchy, untraceable revolutionary cells, child porn rings, all that good happy stuff. The stuff people want to be untraceable for--and are willing to pay for. This is the failure of nerve that all corporations and "reputable" academics face. CONCLUSION: To really do something about untraceability you need to be untraceable. Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to. Most of all, think about why so many efforts to sort of deploy digital cash or untraceability tools have essentially failed due to a failure of nerve, a failure to go for the brass ring. --Tim May From jim_windle at eudoramail.com Sat Aug 25 19:06:16 2001 From: jim_windle at eudoramail.com (Jim Windle) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 22:06:16 -0400 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:49:21 Tim May wrote: > > >Well, yes, there are many. I only even _tried_ to list a handful of the >most important folks in just that one field: nuclear. Every field has >its giants. > >And the ones I cited in just the nuclear field were not just scientists, >they were policy advisors. Szilard's soliciting of Einstein to write the >letter to Roosevelt, Einstein's letter, Fermi's policy work in the >1950s, Teller's lobbying for the H-bomb, Oppenheimer and the Manhattan >Project (and later antiwar lobbying), and Von Neumann's powerful >arguments for building up the nuclear arsenal. (VN favored a pre-emptive >nuclear strike on Russia with bombers.) > >The other examples (we could write all day listing such giants) were >certainly scientists, but many had no interest whatsoever in policy. >Kurt Godel, for example. Crick, as another. I don't recall Shannon >having much interest in policy. > Yes, I recognise that you were naming only the giants in a particular, though higly importnat field, who also had interest in "policy". My point was simply that certain ideas are so pwerful that their authors have influence on events whether or not they seek it. And that Washington policy makers must come to terms with those idea, whether or not they like. Jim Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com From frissell at panix.com Sat Aug 25 19:27:16 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 22:27:16 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010825222537.03cb7d60@frissell@brillig.panix.com> So does anyone know who's handling Jim's appeal or is he proceeding in forma pauperis, or is he declining to appeal? DCF At 11:41 AM 8/25/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Two consecutive (not concurrent) sentences, sez the judge yesterday. Jim >made a statement to the court. Judge agreed with prosecutors' maximum >penalties (otherwise sentences would have been concurrent). See Wired >News, probably on Monday, for details. > >-Declan From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sun Aug 26 01:37:12 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 22:37:12 -1000 Subject: Anonymous Posting In-Reply-To: <200108260715.f7Q7Fof12170@slack.lne.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010825210529.02b15ef0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010825223544.02af8e30@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 00:13 8/26/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Reese wrote: <...> >Fuck off. I'll take constructive criticism from people who are better >writers than I, or at least in the same ballpark. > >But not from those who have left no lasting impression. I've left no lasting impression, as you tell me to Fuck off? Lol. Reese From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 20:17:35 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:17:35 -0400 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010825171522.034b4e80@idiom.com>; from bill.stewart@pobox.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 05:24:31PM -0700 References: <200108251640.f7PGegf07654@slack.lne.com> <20010825105958.G12511@cluebot.com> <200108251640.f7PGegf07654@slack.lne.com> <20010825125747.B14762@cluebot.com> <5.0.2.1.1.20010825171522.034b4e80@idiom.com> Message-ID: <20010825231735.A21878@cluebot.com> Bill makes an excellent point. Journalists (especially at a place like the PFF conference, where technical content is practically zero and no news happens) are part of the attraction. Lobbyists and execs are more likely to agree to grace the event with their presence if journalists show up (CSPAN was there, as were probably 15 reporters). We're part of the, um, attraction, I guess. -Declan On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 05:24:31PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: > But PFF is also a Pundit-Con - it gets its value not only from the speakers > and attendees but also from the reporters who attend, and they're as > important a > part of the business expenses of the conference as booze and rubber chicken, > and there'd probably be fewer paying attendees without them. > Similarly, at PR-oriented computer conferences (Comdex et al.) that's the case, > while at academic conferences (Crypto in Santa Barbara, for instance), > they're not, and obviously at journalism-oriented conferences they're > the target paying audience so they're not comped. > > I suspect Tim's objection to paying high rates for conferences where > journalists are comped is partly due to the content and style of the > conference... From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 20:25:43 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:25:43 -0400 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108260046.f7Q0kkf10421@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 05:44:39PM -0700 References: <5.0.2.1.1.20010825171522.034b4e80@idiom.com> <200108260046.f7Q0kkf10421@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825232543.B21878@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 05:44:39PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > I won't pay these rates for _any_ conference. Greg Broiles hit the nail > on the head: the only ones worth paying for are the ones with short-term > economic payoff. For CFP, this probably means law firms hoping to get > some business, or hoping to recruit some lawyers. CFP is still worth attending, but more as a social event nowadays. It's started to become a corporate-privacy-officer conference. I was chatting two weeks ago with a friend who's a CPO at one of the valley's largest firms and my friend was talking about suggesting a panel on "how firms can comply with european data directive stuff." Not unimportant in a practical sense, but hardly interesting, or cypherpunkish. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 20:36:39 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:36:39 -0400 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108260151.f7Q1pSf10721@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 06:49:21PM -0700 References: <200108260151.f7Q1pSf10721@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010825233639.D21878@cluebot.com> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 06:49:21PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Washington _does_ listen to other than lawyers. The examples I gave > showed this to be true in the past, and almost certainly still true. > (And the SDI arguments were in many cases made by scientists, e.g., > Teller, Lowell Wood, etc.) Right, though I see that being the case less so nowadays. The reasons for this are many, and probably complicated, including the growth of the federal government, the subcommittee structure divvying up power in Congress, the rise of the permanent federal bureaucracy, and perhaps most important, the stunning growth in nonprofit/advocacy groups. Still, Congress and the agencies will invite stellar technologists and researchers and scientists to testify on occasion. A handful of congresscritters may even listen. But the rest will vote the way their parties/backers/constituents tell them to. I recall there's only one scientist out of 535 members of Congress, at least last I checked. -Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 20:38:26 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:38:26 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010825222537.03cb7d60@frissell@brillig.panix. com> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825233533.02136980@mail.well.com> Jim is appealing. He's off to the Supremes, as I wrote about in June, after the 9th Circuit dissed him: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,44567,00.html Don't recall who's handling it; I'd have to see if I can dig up those papers (and I just had my office repainted, so it's a mess). Robert Leen may be, which would make for an interesting situation, since he'd presumably have to argue that he was an incompetent lawyer -- but I don't remember. -Declan At 10:27 PM 8/25/01 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >So does anyone know who's handling Jim's appeal or is he proceeding in >forma pauperis, or is he declining to appeal? > >DCF > >At 11:41 AM 8/25/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Two consecutive (not concurrent) sentences, sez the judge yesterday. Jim >>made a statement to the court. Judge agreed with prosecutors' maximum >>penalties (otherwise sentences would have been concurrent). See Wired >>News, probably on Monday, for details. >> >>-Declan From declan at well.com Sat Aug 25 20:48:09 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:48:09 -0400 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <20010825232543.B21878@cluebot.com>; from declan@well.com on Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 11:25:43PM -0400 References: <5.0.2.1.1.20010825171522.034b4e80@idiom.com> <200108260046.f7Q0kkf10421@slack.lne.com> <20010825232543.B21878@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010825234809.E21878@cluebot.com> BTW I'm sure Tim is upset he missed "Borderhack": http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,46304,00.html Privacy advocate Tara Lemmey is CEO of Project Lens, a cooperative environment between government, public, and the private sector arenas at the converging point between society and innovation. She is also a founder of TrustE, a nonprofit organization focused on industry-based privacy practices on the Internet. See also: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,45857,00.html -Declan From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 00:06:15 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:06:15 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108260708.f7Q78Lf12032@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 11:51 PM, dmolnar wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > >> (What might? Putting several of the main architects of competing >> systems >> like Freedom, Mojo, Morpheus, Mixmaster, etc. together in a room with >> plenty of blackboards, a lot of beer, and some folks like Lucky, Wei >> Dai, Hal Finney, and others to hash out some of the tough issues and >> maybe catalyze some breakthroughs. Looking at the topics, I see the >> likely paper contributors will be academics and corporate >> ladder-climbers.) > > That's what targeted publicity is for -- making sure the right people > see > the message and show up (and maybe publish something). While I didn't > make > it to the 2001 Berkeley workshop, I know that some of the Freenet > developers were there. ZKS was well-represented. I think the Mojo people > were there, though I could be wrong. That's a start. No, you're missing the point. The idea is not to just get _bodies_ paying their $600 or $1000 or whatever. That's just business as usual, with suits with Powerpoint on their laptops displaying pretty charts. When I said get the main architects together in a room, with lots of beer, I meant that literally. I didn't mean a presentation at the Airport Hilton or wherever. I meant an intense brain-storming session. The beer to lubricate the "bullshits!" and "here's a better way"s. Instead, you're just describing a "that's a start" scenario which is actually just a snooze-a-thon. > > Then once everyone's there, the rest is a matter of (non)scheduling and > beer ordering. (well, and Kahlua maybe). > > So what I should do now, I guess, is contact the Morpheus team and > convince them to come. maybe submit something if they feel like it. Little point in them just presenting a set of dry slides on what Morpheus is intended to do, blah blah blah. This is what is missing from so many conferences: pizazz! Controversy, yelling, bullshit claims being denounced. (I'm not saying the Morpheus or Freenet or Mojo people are making bullshit claims, but it's clear that _some_ of the P2P/crypto players JUST DON'T GET IT.) Rooms filled with comped (and bored) journalists, suits giving summaries of product plans, spooks from Washington outlining policy initiatives. Fuck that noise. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 00:11:35 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:11:35 -0700 Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108260713.f7Q7Def12116@slack.lne.com> On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 11:51 PM, dmolnar wrote: > So what I should do now, I guess, is contact the Morpheus team and > convince them to come. maybe submit something if they feel like it. > > I need to add another comment. I don't know if you speak for the P.E.T. Workshop or not, Dave, but the mistake with this and similar recent conferences is to think that you can just issue a "cattle call" for papers and have interesting papers come in. The challenge when launching a new conference, as in Information Hiding, Financial Cryptography, this one, is to do more than just issue cattle calls. Sadly, too many of these b.s. conferences take the easy way out and just do the cattle call, hoping that some droids at Philips or Siemens or Intel will write up something vaguely related to the ostensible theme of the conference. The frosting on the cake will be when Esther Dyson is invited to give the keynote speech. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 00:13:45 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:13:45 -0700 Subject: Anonymous Posting In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010825210529.02b15ef0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: <200108260715.f7Q7Fof12170@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 12:11 AM, Reese wrote: > It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be > appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as > you sort of noted. Fuck off. I'll take constructive criticism from people who are better writers than I, or at least in the same ballpark. But not from those who have left no lasting impression. --Tim May From pharm22 at turbomail.net Sun Aug 26 00:36:01 2001 From: pharm22 at turbomail.net (pharm22 at turbomail.net) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:36:01 Subject: Subject: Get Viagra, Celebrex, Xenical and more Online Now!! Message-ID: <332.328858.348270@www.turbomail.net> AT LAST - THESE 'MIRACLE' PHARMECEUTICAL WONDER DRUGS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU NOW ONLINE .... - ORDER DIRECT FROM YOUR COMPUTER ... NO INCONVENIENCE OR EMBARRASSMENT TO YOU. No hassles, no waiting rooms, - everything is done online. ONLINE ASSESSMENT BY USA PHYSICIANS & IMMEDIATE PRESCRIPTION DISPENSING. All the information that you require is at our Web Site and orders may be placed directly there also. _________________________ V I A G R A� ... manufactured by Pfizer. The miracle drug for male impotence & sexual disfunction. VIAGRA� ... $5.97 per dose* discreetly online here. *based on the cost of 100mg tablet split in half and taken as 2 x 50mg doses. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/viagra.htm _________________________ - THE MIRACLE DRUG FOR PAIN RELIEF ... CELEBREX� The new wonder drug C E L E B R E X� gives incredible relief from the debilitating pain of ARTHRITIS and many other painful ailments. CELEBREX� available only by prescription, is an effective medical PAIN RELIEF DRUG, without the side effects of other less successful pain killers. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/celebrex.htm _________________________ AT LAST - THE MIRACLE DRUG FOR MALE HAIR LOSS AND BALDNESS ... P R O P E C I A� PROPECIA� (finasteride), available only by prescription, is an exciting weapon in the battle against male pattern hair loss. PROPECIA� blocks the formation of DHT and in this way appears to interupt a key factor in the development of inherited pattern hair loss in men. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/propecia.htm _________________________ AT LAST - THE MIRACLE DRUG FOR PROVEN WEIGHT LOSS ..... X E N I C A L� The new wonder slimming drug XENICAL� is approved by the FDA for use in the USA. XENICAL� available only by prescription is an effective medical treatment for weight loss .. .. NOT SOME FAD ! .. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/xenical.htm _________________________ C L A R I T I N� ( loratadine ) ..... for powerful relief of seasonal allergy symtoms of sneezing, itchy watery eyes, and a runny nose by blocking the action of histamine. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/claritin.htm _________________________ WARNING !! SMOKING KILLS BIGTIME !! ARE YOU READY TO STOP SMOKING NOW.. ..... FOREVER ?? Z Y B A N� WILL ASSIST YOU KICK IT. ZYBAN � is the newest option to assist in smoking cessation. It is an anti-smoking pill that seems to reduce nicotine withdrawal symptoms and the urge to smoke. ZYBAN � ( bupropion hydrochloride) approved by FDA in May 1997 has ONE MAJOR ADVANTAGE over any other anti-smoking fix .... .IT CONTAINS NO NICOTINE ... http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/zyban.htm _________________________ R E N O V A� ... .. is the first PRESCRIPTION cream to help to reduce fine facial wrinkles and lines, fade brown spots and smooth surface roughness when used as part of a total skin care and sun protection program. RENOVA� increases collagen levels in the areas where applied. RENOVA� works by stimulating the generation of new skin cells. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974/renova.htm _________________________ Patients are assessed online for their suitability to take ANY of these breakthrough pharmeceutical drugs and if approved their prescription is dispensed immediately with further ADDITIONAL refills. ORDERS ARE SHIPPED WORLDWIDE, [ to Countries where Customs permits delivery ], and delivered discreetly to your door. http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/974 _________________________ To optout from future mailings please visit http://www.othoserver.net/onlinemeds/remove.html From jharding at lcupid.com Sun Aug 26 01:16:23 2001 From: jharding at lcupid.com (jharding at lcupid.com) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 01:16:23 -0700 Subject: Free Round Trip Airfare - Webmasters Program Message-ID: <200108260122993.SM01228@209.176.20.83> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jharding at lcupid.com Sun Aug 26 01:16:23 2001 From: jharding at lcupid.com (jharding at lcupid.com) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 01:16:23 -0700 Subject: Free Round Trip Airfare - Webmasters Program Message-ID: <200108260122292.SM01228@209.176.20.83> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 639 bytes Desc: not available URL: From contactus at collectiondirectory.com Sun Aug 26 02:26:31 2001 From: contactus at collectiondirectory.com (AR Management Consultants) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:26:31 -0700 Subject: Collection Agencies and Attorneys Urgently Needed to Place Accounts!! Message-ID: <200108260926.f7Q9QZO02536@ak47.algebra.com> * BUSINESSES SEEKING COLLECTION AGENCIES AND ATTORNEYS TO ASSIGN ACCOUNTS!!! www.collectiondirectory.com CollectionDirectory.com needs to fill listings in the following states: Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. It appears that we have a shortage of Collection Agencies and Attorneys appearing in our directory that cover these states. We have had several requests from businesses to place accounts in these areas. However, in many instances we did not have an Agency or Attorney covering that particular area. If you are licensed to do business in these states, please contact us immediately to list in either the Collection Agency or Attorney Directory. Take advantage of the Grand Opening Special Offer that will expire 8/31/01. See below for details. ATTENTION: ALL COLLECTION AGENCIES AND ATTORNEYS NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY: Our new company, www.CollectionDirectory.com is the largest Collection Agency and Attorney Directory in the country. CollectionDirectory.com operates exclusively as a Collection Agency and Attorney Directory focusing on attracting clients for its members. Since Our New and Improved Website Has Been Launched, The response has been phenomenal! If you missed the Grand Opening Offer, now is you chance! This is an Exclusive Offer to join Our New Membership Directory! AR Management Consultants has joined forces with the largest International Collection Agency and Attorney Directory to become: CollectionDirectory.com www.collectiondirectory.com In response to our customer feed back, we have incorporated several new features to our site: * Beautiful, New Hi-tech Site * Heightened Web Exposure and Web Presence on all Major Search Engines * Expanded Search Capabilities-Search by Company name, Attorney Name, or any other keywords * Toolbox- A Free Collection Resource for Clients and Members * Quick, Easy Search by State and City Location * Exclusive Banner Opportunities * Web Design and Web Maintenance * Great Prices * And Much, Much More!!! * OUR GRAND OPENING SPECIAL * JOIN OUR DIRECTORY TODAY (One Year Price): * $89.00 FOR 1ST LOCATION LISTING * (SAVE $10.00 WITH THIS OFFER) PRICE ON THE WEB SITE IS $99.00. YOU MUST MENTION THIS OFFER TO RECEIVE THE DISCOUNT **ATTENTION EXISTING CUSTOMERS: ALL CURRENT AR MANAGEMENT MEMBERS LISTED IN www.collectionsconsultant.com WILL NOW APPEAR IN THE NEW DIRECTORY. This URL will now point to the new site CollectionDirectory.com, giving you twice the exposure than before. (Check it out)! Complete the On-line application at: http://www.collectiondirectory.com/join_directory.htm Submit Application Today with Credit Card Payment Option, Become a Member and Be Listed in the Directory Within 24 hours. With Check Orders completed within 24 hours upon receipt of check. You May also Fax the application to (949) 360-9241 or call (949) 831-8755 for Phone orders. * Listing in our directory is fast, easy and hassle free. Just fill out the online application and email or fax to 949 360 9241 including your payment option. * We will list your company within 24 hours of receipt of payment. * Due to our expanded search engine status, we are now reaching a Global Network of Businesses. * Link to your Website or let us create a web page or website for you! No extra charge for link to existing website. Creating a web page, reasonably priced. Check out our rates at: http://www.collectiondirectory.com/Web_services.htm * Membership is free upon the purchase of first Listing. * Referrals are 100% Free * Listings are by State, then City. Cost is Per Listing. You can be listed in one area or in every state, any combination. * Banner Advertising: Advertising your Business on our Site- now available at reasonable prices, call for details. * List Today and Start Tracking the Prospects! Call AR Management Consultants today (949) 831- 8755 27068 La Paz Road #243, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-3041 www.collectiondirectory.com This offer expires 08/31/2001 "This email ad is being sent in full compliance with U.S. Senate Bill 1618, Title #3, Section 301." (Which states "A statement that further transmissions of unsolicited commercial electronic mail to the recipient by the person who initiates transmission of the message may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic mail address with the word 'remove' in the subject line." From dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu Sat Aug 25 23:51:14 2001 From: dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu (dmolnar) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108260227.f7Q2Rnf10988@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > (What might? Putting several of the main architects of competing systems > like Freedom, Mojo, Morpheus, Mixmaster, etc. together in a room with > plenty of blackboards, a lot of beer, and some folks like Lucky, Wei > Dai, Hal Finney, and others to hash out some of the tough issues and > maybe catalyze some breakthroughs. Looking at the topics, I see the > likely paper contributors will be academics and corporate > ladder-climbers.) That's what targeted publicity is for -- making sure the right people see the message and show up (and maybe publish something). While I didn't make it to the 2001 Berkeley workshop, I know that some of the Freenet developers were there. ZKS was well-represented. I think the Mojo people were there, though I could be wrong. That's a start. Then once everyone's there, the rest is a matter of (non)scheduling and beer ordering. (well, and Kahlua maybe). So what I should do now, I guess, is contact the Morpheus team and convince them to come. maybe submit something if they feel like it. -David From mycasinobuilder at yahoo.com Sun Aug 26 01:44:21 2001 From: mycasinobuilder at yahoo.com (MyCasinoBuilder.com) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:44:21 -0500 Subject: Revolutionary Casino Software Message-ID: <200108260844.DAA29747@einstein.ssz.com> OWN YOUR VERY OWN CASINO AND SPORTSBOOK! - NO PROGRAMMING skills necessary! - OPEN for business 24 hours per day - NO INVESTMENT required! - CUSTOM BRANDED website design! - Offer over 20 extremely popular and exciting games including: Blackjack Bacarrat Craps Roulette Pai Gow Slots ...and much more "...Internet Gambling is by far the fastest growing and most profitable business on the Internet today!" according to Steve Wynn, CEO of Mirage Resorts. With our state-of-the-art, easy to use software, you can now build your own Internet gambling website instantly and start capitalizing on a multi-bullion dollar industry which is still in its relative infancy. Unlike conventional dot com businesses, online gambling is a fast-growing, cash-rich business. Just imagine if you captured a fraction of 1% of the bets placed online. As the number of internet users increases exponentially, so will the amounts wagered online. The time to establish an online presence is now, before the next big surge in internet growth. You will receive 50% of all net winnings - the highest commission payout in the online gambling industry! You can expect to earn $3,000 - 5,000 plus a week! Best of all, this is 100% LEGAL. Don't believe it? Check out the web site http://www.MyCasinoBuilder.com for more details. ####################################################################### We strongly oppose the use of SPAM email and do not want anyone who does not wish to receive our mailings to receive them. As a result, we have retained the services of an independent 3rd party to administer our list management and remove list (www.removeyou.com). This is not SPAM. If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please click below and enter your email at the bottom of the page. You may then rest-assured that you will never receive another email from us again. http//www.removeyou.com The 21st Century Solution. I.D. # 032950 ####################################################################### From jya at pipeline.com Sun Aug 26 07:27:25 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 07:27:25 -0700 Subject: Bell Sues In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010825222537.03cb7d60@frissell@brillig.panix. com> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825113937.02113060@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <200108261134.HAA09247@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Here's the 14-page court docket for Jim Bell's case through August 25, 2001: http://cryptome.org/jdb082501.htm This lists several of Jim's appeals, the last on August 14. For a flavor of what's been going on to deny Jim his rights here's a footnote to a "Sentencing Memorandum" of August 9 by Robert Leen, Jim's attorney (docket No. 184): "Within the past week undersigned counsel obtained a copy of the class action lawsuit the defendant has filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Among the accusations in the Complaint is a litany of alleged ethical violations, criminal acts and misdeeds that undersigned counsel purportedly committed in conjunction with the Court and other court officers. In response to complaints the defendant has made to this court, the WSBA and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, undersigned counsel has repeatedly moved to withdraw or, in the alternative, permit the defendant to represent himself. These requests have been denied. Inasmuch as the defendant has objected to undersigned counsel taking any action on his behalf undersigned counsel asks that the Court not rely upon any argument made in this sentencing memorandum unless expressly adopted by the defendant." ----- No private mail on this topic, responses only to cpunks without cc to me, thanks. From honig at sprynet.com Sun Aug 26 09:02:58 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:02:58 -0700 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010825180304.02132ab0@mail.well.com> References: <200108252135.f7PLZMf09568@slack.lne.com> <20010825164536.C18435@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010826090258.00923740@pop.sprynet.com> At 06:12 PM 8/25/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I agree that John Young should be considered a reporter. And also a ... >Still, I think it's possible to differentiate between people involved or >suspected of being involved in a criminal act (Clinton, Tripp, Condit, >perhaps Vinnie, in your example) and neutral observers and commentators. Ho-ho, but JY is a known subscriber/contributor to the same Conspiracy List as JB, CJ, etc. (As are you..) Ergo, a sufficiently rabid [per|pro]secutor could strip you of your 'neutrality'. (What's to stop Vinnie from starting a website covering the Mob to gain journalists' protections?) What's to stop a prosecutor for arguing that a journalist who publishes mostly in, e.g., lefty mags is not part of the Conspiracy du jour? What you and Tim ought to consider IMHO is that the 5th amendment's protection against self-incrimination protects everyone, and journalists don't need 'special' status under such a reading. All you need to do is realize how easily you can be painted into a conspiracy, or charged with an offense under some 'good-samaritan' (compulsory intervention) law. That is sufficient linkage between possible-testimony and self-incrimination. (Except when a grand jury abuses its ability to grant immunity...another thread.) That certainly would have excused JY from answering *anything*, regardless of his status as a Protected Species or not. In the case of that author who is writing her first book about some murder she's researched, she is probably 'guilty' of not reporting what she's learned, under some screwed law somewhere. From mean-green at hushmail.com Sun Aug 26 09:13:59 2001 From: mean-green at hushmail.com (mean-green at hushmail.com) Date: Sun Aug 26 09:13:59 PDT 2001 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <200108261612.f7QGC2U93494@mailserver1.hushmail.com> At 09:56 PM 8/25/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: .... some really great stuff deleted >CONCLUSION: > >To really do something about untraceability you need to be untraceable. > >Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to. > >Most of all, think about why so many efforts to sort of deploy digital cash or untraceability tools have essentially failed due to a failure of nerve, a failure to go for the brass ring. Right on target. There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest. One of this list's members shopped here and elsewhere a few years back for participation in building a DBC-based payment and value system. He had assembled a team with the banking experience, needing the technology implementors. None were willing to put their talents to the test. They all nodded regarding the need for such a facility but none would expend any efforts. They were all being courted by the failed dot.bombs which waved generous salary and stock offers. Now that the tulip market has evaporated along with the dreams of quick riches I wonder if any these pseudo-zealots were ever really interested or was it a merely a childish fancy from the start? As Tim demonstrates the opportunity is still there it waits only for those with the right stuff to grab for the ring. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From georgemw at speakeasy.net Sun Aug 26 09:14:57 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:14:57 -0700 Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B88BE11.7652.4CCFC8@localhost> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3567 bytes Desc: not available URL: From georgemw at speakeasy.net Sun Aug 26 09:20:14 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:20:14 -0700 Subject: PETA gets control of parody peta.org domain, says appeals court In-Reply-To: <20010825121043.A13849@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <3B88BF4E.471.51A6E8@localhost> On 25 Aug 2001, at 12:10, Declan McCullagh wrote: > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46313,00.html > > Ethical Treatment of PETA Domain > By Declan McCullagh (declan at wired.com) > 2:00 a.m. Aug. 25, 2001 PDT > > WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court has ruled that a website titled > "People Eating Tasty Animals" is not only a bad joke, but also an > unlawful one. > > The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said this week that the peta.org > domain name, registered in 1995 by a man who planned to parody the > nonprofit group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was an > illegal trademark infringement. > > Michael Doughney's peta.org parody site lampooned vegetarianism -- > which the real PETA insists upon -- and applauded carnivorism, dubbing > itself a tongue-in-cheek "resource for those who enjoy eating meat, > wearing fur and leather, hunting and the fruits of scientific > research." (PETA opposes medical research on animals even in cases > where human lives could be saved.) Did you actually look at the site in question before writing this article? http://mtd.com/tasty/ it is not a "parody site", the only part that is parody is the title. The resources, the advocacy of meat eating, hunting, animal use in reaearch, etc. are all genuine. George From georgemw at speakeasy.net Sun Aug 26 09:34:29 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:34:29 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B88C2A5.19066.5EB4A0@localhost> On 25 Aug 2001, at 21:39, Jim Windle wrote: > As an addendum I would add Claude Shannon. In fact I can't think of a single lawyer in the 20th century who had the long term influesnce on society that either Shannon or von Neumann did. The list of other influential non-lawyers might also be expanded to include Turing, Godel, von Braun, Crick and Watson. Washington's myopia in thinking olny lawyers are worth listening to is indicative of the type of government we have. > > Jim > > Don't forget Muhammed Ali and Andrew Dice Clay. I know you've only been listing scientists, but you said non-lawyers. Anyone who gets a lot of attention, for whatever reasom, is likely to be able to have a hell of a lot more influence on society than most lawyers or politicians. George From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 26 07:37:35 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:37:35 -0500 Subject: CNN.com - U.S. jail population hits record 6.5 million - August 26, 2001 Message-ID: <3B8909AF.F2727837@ssz.com> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/26/crime.doj.prison.reut/index.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 26 07:46:50 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:46:50 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | SSH Taking Stand On Vulnerability Message-ID: <3B890BDA.2A6075D0@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/26/127216.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 09:55:05 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:55:05 -0700 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010826090258.00923740@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <200108261657.f7QGv9f14389@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:02 AM, David Honig wrote: > At 06:12 PM 8/25/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> I agree that John Young should be considered a reporter. And also a > ... > >> Still, I think it's possible to differentiate between people involved >> or >> suspected of being involved in a criminal act (Clinton, Tripp, Condit, >> perhaps Vinnie, in your example) and neutral observers and >> commentators. > > Ho-ho, but JY is a known subscriber/contributor to the same Conspiracy > List > as JB, CJ, etc. (As are you..) Ergo, a sufficiently rabid > [per|pro]secutor > could strip you of your 'neutrality'. (What's to stop Vinnie from > starting a website covering the Mob to gain journalists' protections?) > What's to stop a prosecutor for arguing that a journalist who publishes > mostly in, e.g., lefty mags is not part of the Conspiracy du jour? > > What you and Tim ought to consider IMHO is that the 5th amendment's > protection > against self-incrimination protects everyone, and journalists don't need > 'special' status under such a reading. Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from what I hear). "Mr. McCullagh, the court hereby grants you transactional immunity for your testimony today. Now Mr. McCullagh, please answer the prosecutors questions and give the court all of your notes made regarding this witness." Much on the Net. Here's just a flavoring: "Title 18 U.S.C. ' 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement. Tim again: I'm not a lawyer, but I read about cases like this. And there were dozens of hours of discussion about use immunity, transactional immunity, etc. during recent high-profile televised cases. The notion that a witness can blithely escape having to testify by asserting the 5th Amendment is one of those folk beliefs that just doesn't hold up. --Tim May From dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu Sun Aug 26 06:55:24 2001 From: dmolnar at hcs.harvard.edu (dmolnar) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Comped scribblers the bane of conferences In-Reply-To: <200108260713.f7Q7Def12116@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > I don't know if you speak for the P.E.T. Workshop or not, Dave, but the > mistake with this and similar recent conferences is to think that you > can just issue a "cattle call" for papers and have interesting papers > come in. Right, I should make this crystal clear. I do *not* speak for this workshop. I am *not* one of the organizers, and I'm not on the program committee. I happen to know (some of) the organizers, but that's about it. -David From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 26 08:02:22 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:02:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108260458.f7Q4wdf11683@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > At the June meeting I drew a graph which makes the point clearly. A pity > I can't draw it here. (Yeah, there are ways. My new Web page should have > some drawings soon. But this list is about ASCII.) > > Plot "Value of Being Untraceable in a Transaction" on the X-axis. This > is the perceived _value_ of being untraceable or private. Start with > "little or nothing," proceed to "about a dollar" then to "hundreds of > dollars" then to "thousands" then to "tens of thousands and more." (The > value of being untraceable is also the cost of getting caught: getting > caught plotting the overthrow of the Crown Prince of Abu Fukyou, being > outed by a corporation in a lawsuit, being audited by the IRS and them > finding evaded taxes, having the cops find a cache of snuff films on > your hard disk, and so on.) Unfortunately the situation is more multi-variant than a simple two-axis graph... There needs to be at least a time axis added as well as splitting out the 'cost of transaction' from the 'cost of anonmymity'. By combining the two a whole zoo of behaviours are ignored. Your graph, and any point from it, isn't worth looking at in anything less thana 5-axis phase space. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From batman_svejk at fuckyou.co.uk Sun Aug 26 10:06:48 2001 From: batman_svejk at fuckyou.co.uk (Batman Svejk) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:06:48 -0700 Subject: summer reading Message-ID: <200108261706.KAA13819@mail3.bigmailbox.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From bear at sonic.net Sun Aug 26 10:17:46 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Gnutella scanning instead of service providers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Gary Jeffers wrote: >My fellow Cypherpunks, > > Ray Dillinger believes that scanning would assist oppressors as >much as regular users. Joseph Ashwood agrees with this and further >thinks that the Internet overhead of a scanner would be a serious >problem. Not really. To that extent, a gnutella scanner is probably already in the hands of any law enforcement types that are interested, and there's no reason gnutella itself ought not benefit from the same technology. Better points, since I need to spell them out, are: (a) If scanning is done in a clumsy way it generates a lot of network traffic and twangs a lot of alarms at various firewalls. (b) scanning is a "hot button" issue with a fair number of people and could generate complaints. (c) complaints about gnutella scanning would be "legal ammo" for people who wanted to shut it down. I think that all network applications ought to be able to find other nodes running other copies of the application - but be very careful how you design it, so as not to piss people off. > As far as Joseph Ashwood's claim that the Internet overhead would be >too much. Is his point exaggerated? Would it be possible to write low >overhead scanners? I do not have the "skill set" to say. Maybe he is >right, maybe not. Anybody got something definitive to say on this? A nice low-overhead scanner that doesn't generate complaints, would be a request and response on some other protocol. If you write a little cgi program, say IsGnutellaThere.cgi, and have gnutella users drop it into their apache (or iis, or whatever) directory, then you can make an HTTP request on port 80. IsGnutellaThere.cgi would run and check to see if the gnutella server is up and what port it's on, maybe check a table to find other gnutellas that it knows about, and return that information in an http response. Then gnutella users who wanted to be scannable (and not all of them will) could drop the program into their CGI directory, and scan-enabled gnutellas could just learn how to make a simple HTTP request and keep that table up-to-date for IsGnutellaThere.cgi to access. HTTP is low-overhead and innocuous, and there's already a hole for it in most firewalls. It won't generate alarms. A straight-up "scanning" approach most definitely will. Bear From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 26 08:19:50 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:19:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108260458.f7Q4wdf11683@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > RATIONAL ACTORS > > The obvious point is that rational actors never pay more for > untraceability than they get back in perceived benefits. Someone will > not pay $1000 for privacy/untraceability technology or tools that only > nets them $500 in perceived benefits. > > They won't spend $1.00 in tools to net them 10 cents in perceived > benefits. If it's restricted to a single opportunity, yes. If one adds the boundary condition of repeatability your thesis comes apart. Consider the cost of using an anonymizing layer which is for almost all players equal. The point to be gained here is there are different anonymizing layers. Each with their own specific characteristics. A mouse doesn't look like an elephant for a reason. Now if the anonymizing layer is digital, for example, the cost is about the same across the board, irrespective of other source/sink magnitudes. In those cases for example, assuming a higher resourced player was involved would mean the cost of enforcement would go up. They would have resources to spend on additional, and distinct, anonymizing layers that lower layered players wouldn't have available. Most rational actors, instead of measuring 'perceived benefits', will only pay a certain percentage of their gains to reap those gains. One can then break the various layers (eg 10%, 20%, 30%, ...) into characteristic behaviours. It's also worth noting that a specific relation between the selection of that percentage and how much the player already has is present. A Markov Chain of behaviours would be a more apt model. Not everyone faced with the same numbers will make the same choice. There is a limit to 'rationality'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bear at sonic.net Sun Aug 26 10:42:58 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <200108251619.MAA00074@johnson.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: >See 9-page judgment in TIF format: > > http://cryptome.org/jdb-hit.tif (262KB) > >In addition to 10 years Jim was also fined $10,000 due >immediately and faces three years of probation. No >computer use and a long list of other prohibitions >including "no direct or indirect contact with the >victim in this case, Special Agent Jeff Gordon." > >Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. Interesting that JeffG should have his name included in those documents. Isn't he afraid that that order, and his involvement in this case generally, is going to stick up like a lightning rod and attract the attention of lots of folks who would otherwise have ignored him? Bear From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 10:46:53 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:46:53 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108261612.f7QGC2U93494@mailserver1.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <200108261749.f7QHn0f14646@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:13 AM, mean-green at hushmail.com wrote: > Right on target. There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not > mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to > pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest. There are a couple of points to make on this issue: First, the "correlation of interests" situation is a well-solved problem. Those with the financial means (and maybe some political/technical interest) set up a company and hire those with the technical abilities and interest. The company may be self-funded by the founders, or outside investors may be sought. However, this is not so easy to do when it comes to these technologies. ZKS did it and raised, we hear, something like $60 million. Quite a warchest for untraceability tools. ZKS has been much-discussed here. There are some major obstacles with such a public company: 1. Patents and IP in general. Doing digital cash without using Chaum's blinding patent may be tough. (Some of the "agnostic" approaches discussed here may work, technically, but will probably still be litigated. A public company is a public target. The current owners of the Chaum patent, a Canadian company IIRC, will not look dispassionately on other companies doing an end-run.) 2. A public company or traceable group of developers will become targets. The attacks could be just simple legal ones, but could range up to RICO and beyond. "Pedophile-grade untraceability" is powerful stuff. How long before Mojo faces lawsuits analogous to what Napster faced? (Napster is a good example of this. Utter traceability, of both music traders and the company itself. Those who downloaded or uploaded music got nastygrams and threats of civil action, and the company itself was sued and now faces extinction. It may be that anyone developing such tools should just give up on the idea of becoming a dot com tycoon and instead release products untraceably...perhaps benefitting in other ways.) > One of this list's members shopped here and elsewhere a few years back > for participation in building a DBC-based payment and value system. He > had assembled a team with the banking experience, needing the > technology implementors. None were willing to put their talents to the > test. They all nodded regarding the need for such a facility but none > would expend any efforts. If you are talking about Bob Hettinga, there are many things one could say about his schemes and plans. I'm more impressed with what another person is actually doing: Orlin Grabbe. Do some Web searches. Orlin has good banking credentials himself (Wharton, coined the term "regulatory arbitrage"), good libertarian credentials (a powerful newsletter for many years), some technical abilities (writes code), has been willing to move to places like Costa Rica, and, most importantly, he UNDERSTANDS the "sweet spot" argument. Bob H., in my opinion, got too fixated on coining new acronyms and in flitting around to various lists and focussed in on the wrong end of the cost/benefit continuum. He kept claiming the DBC or E$bux or whatever would be cheaper to use than real money. Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public nexus of attack, and then deploy systems which target that high-value sweet spot. The real bankers and the regulators won't allow such things into the official banking system. (Why do people think the banking system will embrace "digital bearer bonds" having untraceability features when true bearer bonds were eliminated years ago?) > > They were all being courted by the failed dot.bombs which waved > generous salary and stock offers. Now that the tulip market has > evaporated along with the dreams of quick riches I wonder if any these > pseudo-zealots were ever really interested or was it a merely a > childish fancy from the start? As Tim demonstrates the opportunity is > still there it waits only for those with the right stuff to grab for > the ring. > I know several list members who started or joined Mojo. I know several who started or joined C2. I know several who joined ZKS. I know several who joined Digicash. The problem has not been that Cypherpunks were so greedy they went to work for Pets.com instead of ZKS, C2, Mojo, or Digicash. The problems were with the ability of those companies to make money, for lots of reasons. My interest is not in doing a "Cypherpunks Business Review" dissection of these companies and their (possible) failings. Frankly, I don't think the "let's form a corporation!' model is the best one in all cases, particularly in this one. Maybe I'll say more about this in another post. --Tim May From jya at pipeline.com Sun Aug 26 10:51:31 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:51:31 -0700 Subject: Bell Case Files Message-ID: <200108261458.KAA14692@granger.mail.mindspring.net> We've put up some 80 court filings in the Bell case, hyperlinked to the August 25 docket cited here yesterday: http://cryptome.org/jdb082501.htm Recall that Judge Tanner sealed all the public files that were available when he learned one of the filings provided names of the jury pool and names of jurors selected for the trial. The court's online files were removed. He subsequently unsealed most of the files (except 7 which remain sealed) but the pre-trial filings have not been restored to the court's web site. Now only post-trial filings are available there. Our offering is for the whole kaboodle that appeared on the court's site from day 1, starting with the complaint from November 2000 through the sentencing order of August 24, 2001. The files are in the multi-image TIFF format used by the WWA court (and a number of other courts). The files can be viewed by a multi-image viewer such as Kodak's Imaging for Windows (included with W98 et seq), Quick Time, Graph Works (a shareware), and others. From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Aug 26 02:51:45 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:45 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: cpunx fork of Mojo Message-ID: I've started running MojoNation today http://www.mojonation.net/devel/source.shtml which I like so far, it's smooth already, despite late beta. According to past discussions with Mojo developers it should be very possible to make a cypherpunk-relevant fork of it. The cypherpunk-relevant changes would be sacrificing performance by only having a low node connectivity, only allow links into different legal compartments (one needs to draw an informal persecutability matrix of domains) and onion routing. The changes might be small enough so that the system would still be able to be part of the Mojo network. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 11:59:35 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:59:35 -0700 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <20010826142522.E32686@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108261901.f7QJ1bf14888@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 11:25 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness >> transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from >> what I hear). >> >> "Mr. McCullagh, the court hereby grants you transactional immunity for >> your testimony today. Now Mr. McCullagh, please answer the prosecutors >> questions and give the court all of your notes made regarding this >> witness." > > I didn't assert the 5A, but the 1A, during my brief experience before > the Grumpy Judge. > > What Tim and Dave and John seem not to understand is that journalists > routinely refuse to reveal their sources even when threatened with > subpoenas and contempt of court. Some editors will only hire reporters > who pledge they'll go to jail before revealing a source. Don't tar me with that brush, Declan! I said absolutely nothing about what fraction of reporters stand their ground, what fraction roll over, what fraction end up going to jail on contempt charges, and so on. I've addressed two basic issues: -- the issue of shield laws, which I think are clearly unconstitutional and which raise issues of state sanctioning of some reporters over other reporters -- the claim that assertion of 5A rights lets a witness choose not to testify I made no claims about whether reporters routinely refuse to name their sources. (I did hint that Jeff Gordon, the victim/witness/real prosecutor probably took into account the "can of worms" he would be opening if he sought to compell disclosure of certain things...an implicit reference to the fact that many reporters will refuse to name sources and to disclose things said to them.) > Some > journalists may be schmucks -- the local reporter in the Bell case who > took the stand and blabbed for the better part of an hour is one > example -- but many are principled. This may make prosecutors leery > of calling them in the first place. Hence the comment I made about can of worms. I think John Young would have had a much harder time claiming reporter's privilege. Checking the archives for the period when Bell was trying to track down home addresses of agents should clarify this point. John might have done better to assert 5A rights and make them force the issue by dropping the line of questioning or granting him some form of immunity. --Tim May From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 26 10:27:52 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:27:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <200108261657.f7QGv9f14389@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness > transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from > what I hear). > Much on the Net. Here's just a flavoring: > > "Title 18 U.S.C. ' 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional > immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that > transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the > offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the > witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony > in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution > for perjury or giving a false statement. > The notion that a witness can blithely escape having to testify by > asserting the 5th Amendment is one of those folk beliefs that just > doesn't hold up. No thank you, your honor. Followed by a contempt charge. Yes it will be rough, but a citizen can't be forced to accept immunity. Note that this applies to ones speech, not documents. The 4th allows no exceptions once a court order is issued (and there should be none - equal protection) outside of the 5th. Of course the protection of the 5th gets fuzzier as one moves away from questions related to direct issues for one might be prosecuted, that 'witness against himself' part. The catch there is the court is in no place, being ignorant of the facts, to decide what constitutes testimony against oneself (ie 'any criminal case). The 5th would indicate that the only agent suitable to make that call would be the person being asked the question. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From mjinks at sysvi.com Sun Aug 26 10:43:56 2001 From: mjinks at sysvi.com (mjinks at sysvi.com) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:43:56 -0500 Subject: FC: More on Brian K. West, DOJ, and "Good Samaritan" prosecution Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:22:57AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > From: John Noble > Subject: Re: FC: U.S. Attorney replies to "Good Samaritan" outcry with > statement > Cc: gharlanr at bellsouth.net > > It's an interesting defense -- accidental penetration. Maybe somebody on > your list, Declan, who knows more about network security can answer this > question: if a hypothetical cracker was nailed by real-time monitoring -- a > "gotcha" while online and inside the network -- would he likely know it or > suspect it? "An intruder" given full shell access to the machine in question could find out anything about it, within reason, but from what I've read Mr. West is not alleged to have had that kind of access. It sounds like he got read-write access to a section of the filesystem, but probably not an area where any intrusion detection systems would be residing. Was he caught on any monitoring systems? > Or can we assume that his voluntary report of his accidental > accomplishment was the product of good faith and stupidity? I take some issue with the implication that the incident could not have happened casually. Whether it did or not is apparently open to question, no doubt we'll be hearing more about exactly what happened and when. But as I read the accounts presented so far, there is every reason to believe that the initial intrusion _could_ have happened almost before Mr. West had a moment to consider the implications of what he was doing. The alleged misconfiguration was that bad, that easy to exploit. One might ask then, why Mr. West did not immediately cease his actions, why he continued to download files if he knew that his access was illegitimate. I don't want to speculate on Mr. West's state of mind or intentions at the time, but a hole this egregious can outrage a technician, and my own first impulse would probably be to alert the owner of the web site, with proof included. After all, without proof I'm just smearing a competitor. Next an assertion without rigor but which I think bears some intuitive validity: a crime which does not feel at all like a crime, perhaps because of the ease with which it may be committed, should probably be viewed with a certain degree of leniency. Taking a shortcut across someone else's lawn is trespassing, but it's hardly breaking and entering. If someone leaves a business associate's private documents laying around on their front lawn, and a casual passerby picks them up -- well, technically that's stealing. But most of the police types and lawyers I've met would probably laugh at the notion of prosecuting the guy who picked up an unprotected bundle of documents lying on a lawn, rifled through them, realized who they belonged to, and then handed them off with the message "hey I found these on your buddy's lawn." Maybe he went looking, maybe he had something to gain, but one thing that seems clear to me is that without a glaring (negligent?) error on the part of the ISP, none of this would have been possible, and it seems reasonable to think that the ISP shares at least some responsibility for any harm inflicted. As Mr. Mournian seems to suggest in his own letter, the fact that the Internet was involved should not cloud the nature of what actually took place. > John Noble Michael Jinks ******** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- From phollings at mediaone.net Sun Aug 26 11:07:07 2001 From: phollings at mediaone.net (Peter Hollings) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:07:07 -0400 Subject: More on Brian K. West, DOJ, and "Good Samaritan" prosecution References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010826105411.00a36730@mail.well.com> Message-ID: I suspect that most IT security managers would initially respond to an intrusion by turning on programs that would log the intruder's activities. To prevent re-occurance, they'd want to know the intruder's identity, method of penetration, activities, etc. Also, any form of prosecution would depend on this. (See, for example: http://www.cert.org/security-improvement/modules/m06.html .) Thus, the intruder would likely NOT KNOW immediately that his presence had been detected.) The second question, whether someone could "accidentally" intrude on someone else's computer is more speculative. In general, people don't accidentally access, much less penetrate, another computer, but it's possible, just like it's possible for a legitimate deliveryman knocking at a door to find that it swings open (because it's unlatched). Ultimately, I think that the important issues are things like motivations, damages, knowledge that it was a secure area being intruded upon, etc. Peter Hollings ******** From declan at well.com Sun Aug 26 11:25:22 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:25:22 -0400 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <200108261657.f7QGv9f14389@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:55:05AM -0700 References: <3.0.6.32.20010826090258.00923740@pop.sprynet.com> <200108261657.f7QGv9f14389@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010826142522.E32686@cluebot.com> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness > transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from > what I hear). > > "Mr. McCullagh, the court hereby grants you transactional immunity for > your testimony today. Now Mr. McCullagh, please answer the prosecutors > questions and give the court all of your notes made regarding this > witness." I didn't assert the 5A, but the 1A, during my brief experience before the Grumpy Judge. What Tim and Dave and John seem not to understand is that journalists routinely refuse to reveal their sources even when threatened with subpoenas and contempt of court. Some editors will only hire reporters who pledge they'll go to jail before revealing a source. Some journalists may be schmucks -- the local reporter in the Bell case who took the stand and blabbed for the better part of an hour is one example -- but many are principled. This may make prosecutors leery of calling them in the first place. Only 10-20 professional journalists in the last two decades have been imprisoned, usually for a period not exceeding a few days, for not revealing their sources. See the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press for details. -Declan From declan at well.com Sun Aug 26 12:06:55 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:06:55 -0400 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <20010826142522.E32686@cluebot.com>; from declan@well.com on Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:25:22PM -0400 References: <3.0.6.32.20010826090258.00923740@pop.sprynet.com> <200108261657.f7QGv9f14389@slack.lne.com> <20010826142522.E32686@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010826150655.A1155@cluebot.com> Also, along this line, I've posted some details abuot the Vanessa Leggett case here: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02437.html -Declan On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:25:22PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > > Except that all it takes is for the judge to grant the witness > > transactional or use immunity. Or even full immunity (less common, from > > what I hear). > > > > "Mr. McCullagh, the court hereby grants you transactional immunity for > > your testimony today. Now Mr. McCullagh, please answer the prosecutors > > questions and give the court all of your notes made regarding this > > witness." > > I didn't assert the 5A, but the 1A, during my brief experience before > the Grumpy Judge. > > What Tim and Dave and John seem not to understand is that journalists > routinely refuse to reveal their sources even when threatened with > subpoenas and contempt of court. Some editors will only hire reporters > who pledge they'll go to jail before revealing a source. Some > journalists may be schmucks -- the local reporter in the Bell case who > took the stand and blabbed for the better part of an hour is one > example -- but many are principled. This may make prosecutors leery > of calling them in the first place. Only 10-20 professional > journalists in the last two decades have been imprisoned, usually for > a period not exceeding a few days, for not revealing their sources. > > See the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press for details. > > -Declan From hseaver at ameritech.net Sun Aug 26 13:16:03 2001 From: hseaver at ameritech.net (Harmon Seaver) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:16:03 -0500 Subject: which remailer to install? (fwd) References: <002a01c12e68$a3ac9e80$9ccf54a6@cgomesw2k> Message-ID: <3B8958F6.FC3DB0A9@ameritech.net> There is also the mix-l group for mixmaster remailers at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mix-l -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver at cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver at ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html From declan at well.com Sun Aug 26 12:19:28 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:19:28 -0400 Subject: Reporter's shield laws In-Reply-To: <200108261901.f7QJ1bf14888@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:59:35AM -0700 References: <20010826142522.E32686@cluebot.com> <200108261901.f7QJ1bf14888@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010826151927.A1273@cluebot.com> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 11:59:35AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Don't tar me with that brush, Declan! Upon rereading your post, I think it was Dave and John that I should have mentioned, not you. My apologies. > I made no claims about whether reporters routinely refuse to name their > sources. (I did hint that Jeff Gordon, the victim/witness/real > prosecutor probably took into account the "can of worms" he would be > opening if he sought to compell disclosure of certain things...an > implicit reference to the fact that many reporters will refuse to name > sources and to disclose things said to them.) I found the article I was thinking of, saying 13 reporters jailed in the last two decades: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60300-2001Aug25.html John, who I admire, seems to think that the government can wave a wand called "homeland defense" that will cause journalists around the U.S. to instantly say, "Oh, we must reveal our sources and what they said." This is, of course, nonsense -- and even insulting to journalists who take their responsibilities to sources seriously. If I sound a little peeved, that's why. > I think John Young would have had a much harder time claiming reporter's > privilege. Checking the archives for the period when Bell was trying to > track down home addresses of agents should clarify this point. John > might have done better to assert 5A rights and make them force the issue > by dropping the line of questioning or granting him some form of > immunity. I think you're right on both counts. (While I think John should be considered a journalist, the public interaction he had with Bell over the suspected CIA facility would likely make some mainstream journalism groups like RCFP hesitant to back him.) This is why it makes sense to talk to an experienced, local, and savvy lawyer before taking the stand at the prosecutor's behest. -Declan From gomes at navigo.com Sun Aug 26 12:52:21 2001 From: gomes at navigo.com (Carlos Macedo Gomes) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:52:21 -0400 Subject: which remailer to install? (fwd) References: Message-ID: <002a01c12e68$a3ac9e80$9ccf54a6@cgomesw2k> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene Leitl" To: Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: CDR: Re: which remailer to install? (fwd) > Question: is this thing reliable? > ftp://ftp.zedz.net/pub/crypto/remailer/mixmaster/Mix.3.0.beta/mix-2.9b23.tar .gz > MD5 at my end is ca4e402bff488b909380793914769220 > TIA. Eugene, You can feedback from the group actively running remailers at the following site: http://lexx.shinn.net/mailman/listinfo/remops I'm on the list as previous remail operator (remailer at tamsun.tamu.eud) and more recently an adhoc remailer user. You don't have to be an operator to subscribe. The list is low bandwidth but good for keeping on top of the state of active remailers. waves, C.G. -- gomes at navigo.com Carlos Macedo Gomes _sic itur ad astra_ 1/1; From tjunker at wt.net Sun Aug 26 14:34:49 2001 From: tjunker at wt.net (Thomas Junker) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:34:49 -0500 Subject: No subject In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010826105411.00a36730@mail.well.com> Message-ID: On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:22, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:41:18 -0400 > From: John Noble > Subject: Re: FC: U.S. Attorney replies to "Good Samaritan" outcry with > statement > > It's an interesting defense -- accidental penetration. It's more than interesting: we seem to have entered the age of Click on a Link, Go to Jail. Amplification below... > Maybe somebody on > your list, Declan, who knows more about network security can answer this > question: if a hypothetical cracker was nailed by real-time monitoring -- a > "gotcha" while online and inside the network -- would he likely know it or > suspect it? No, but the question presupposes something not suggested by the published facts I have so far seen: that Mr. West was "inside the network." According to the reports he simply clicked on a function in Microsoft Front Page to capture a Web page for use as a sample and, to his surprise, found that Front was allowed editing access to that page. That's like walking up to a door in an unfamiliar office building to read the occupant information and finding one's self sucked through the door and to an open file cabinet, whereupon the hidden cameras film one "penetrating" someone's confidential information. It was Front Page, a tool from a company notorious for going out of its way to facilitate insecure accesses by automating security holes, that did the penetrating, and that was only possible because the site had not been secured in any way. No doubt leaving the site wide open to public modification is the default in Front Page, which would be true to form. Another analogy could be visiting a business office for information, seeing a sign saying, "Public information this way," following the arrow, opening the door to which it points, finding one's self in a room full of file cabinets, briefly examining some file folders thinking they must contain the public information, discovering that the information is most decidedly not of a public nature, leaving, reporting the lack of security to the management, and being accused of "penetrating" the company's files. It is absurd. Had Mr. West used something like WebWhacker to capture pages, or even "Save As" in his browser, he would have been in no danger of "penetrating" anything, intentionally or otherwise. His basic mistake was in using software that tries to do Dangerous Things at the touch of an innocuous button. His second mistake was pride -- he had to tell someone how smart he was. Reporting an unlocked door to clueless weasels is probably a good way to be asked, "And what were *you* doing opening that door?" and to be accused of trespassing. Or to have detectives show up and ask one, "Can you show us this door you found unlocked, and can you show us exactly how you opened it?" Translate all this into the context of doors with ambiguous markings in public offices where public information is advertized to be available and it becomes clear how silly it is. > Or can we assume that his voluntary report of his accidental > accomplishment was the product of good faith and stupidity? Yes, overwhelmingly so. To suggest that he somehow tipped to some form of monitoring by using Front Page and then 'fessed up to seem of innocent intent is a far reach. And what monitoring, for that matter? It seems unlikely that people disorganized enough to leave their Website completely open to editing by Front Page by anyone on the planet would be together enough to be monitoring their network in real time for intrusions. More likely the "monitoring" was the examination of logs after the fact. Something else I have not seen mentioned is this: many TCP/IP tools, particularly browsers and other Web tools, incessantly send requests for documents until they receive an answer. Crank up a sniffer or other form of raw TCP/IP monitoring and point a browser at a host that doesn't exist or doesn't answer on Port 80. You will see the browser send dozens, perhaps hundreds of requests. There is little in such traffic logs to suggest any correlation between the numerous "attempts" and any wilfullness or repeated action on the part of the person using the software making the requests. Worse, the user is unaware of all that activity, seeing only the spinning logo of the Web browser, for example, as it tries to contact a Website. It is as if your phone had an automatic redial feature that would continue to dial until achieving a connection. It would be as mindless to count the number of calls as some kind of indication of intent or persistence on the part of the caller as it may be to count "attempts" to connect to something in the Internet, particularly something intended to be connected to by its very nature and by tools that customarily contain automatic retry functionalities. Have we now reached a place in La-La Land where each of 100 or more TCP port connection tries automatically made by a browser is to become a "count" in an indictment? > Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:30:21 -0700 > From: Anthony Mournian > > August 25, 2001 > > ... > > Somehow this whole thing of Internet security has begun to turn upside > down. Yea, verily! > It has a chilling effect on free and open communication when it > becomes a crime to talk about the possibility of breaching security, or > to discuss it in an open forum. It has a chilling effect on free speech > when the U.S. Government decides to act like the 800 lb gorilla and go > after a person like Brian K. West, who did in fact look at the content > of another person's computer, and had the common sense to report the > complete lack of security to the computer's owner. Very well put. > Funny, I feel even by writing you this note I invite > investigation by Big Brother. As do I by writing to Declan with the possibility that he may include my message in his public list. > ... > > Much of this note is off the point, and yet is directly on point. The > U.S. Government is too much in many of our lives already, and this > newfound Mecca of computer investigation and The Hammer for those who > even technically step off the line, as apparently did Mr. West, is a bit > too much. It is way too much. It is probably to be expected, though. People, including law enforcement, have demonstrated some difficulty in translating concepts well settled in non-computer contexts into the world of computers and Internet. In time this will all shake out but there will be many casualties along the way. In a few decades readers of old accounts of such bizarre applications of law and legal concepts as we are today witnessing will no doubt shake their heads over the silliness of it all, much as we can now gape at the absurdity of the Salem witch trials and others such excursions, but they will in no way gain a sense of the horror of being one of the casualties. There does indeed appear to be a flight of common sense from most all walks of modern life, from the hamburger flipper who replies to an order for a burger to go by asking, "Here or to go?" to the legion of businesses whose Customer Service is less useful than the time-of-day recording to elected representatives who fall all over themselves to offer and pass legislation clearly prohibited by various constitutions. It should not be all that surprising that law enforcement entities are seizing on new computer-related legislation as if the underlying concepts had just been imported from another galaxy and were to be taken without regard to common sense or any other established legal wisdom. On the one hand people in general are having difficulty applying what they already know to the Internet; on the other hand it is in the nature of law enforcment to seek any advantage at the cost of any principle or any loss of rights for all. What we cannot yet see is how far down the road of lunacy this trend will go before it is corrected. Regards, Thomas Junker tjunker at tjunker.com ******** From 1support at microsoft.com Sun Aug 26 16:50:29 2001 From: 1support at microsoft.com (1support at microsoft.com) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:50:29 Subject: Information You Requested from Microsoft.com Message-ID: NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL IS NOT MONITORED. Welcome to Microsoft Online ID secure Internet environment! Below is your membership information. Please keep this confirmation mail as a record of your password. Consider this information confidential and treat accordingly. Your Microsoft Online ID Password is: cypherpunks A Microsoft Online ID provides access to various Microsoft secured programs. Please check the Frequently Asked Questions and/or Help page of the program you are accessing for questions. Sincerely, Microsoft Online ID Administrator From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Aug 26 08:20:04 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:20:04 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Bell Case Files In-Reply-To: <200108261458.KAA14692@granger.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: Out of curiousity, does anybody mirror cryptome et al. on Freenet and MojoNation? I would do it, but it's easier if you have access to the raw filesystem. On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > We've put up some 80 court filings in the Bell case, > hyperlinked to the August 25 docket cited here yesterday: > > http://cryptome.org/jdb082501.htm -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Aug 26 09:53:32 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:53:32 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: which remailer to install? Message-ID: Any recommendations for a worthwhile packages I can run on the local 128/768 (loaded) line? Pointers to tarballs preferrable. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From cmc at chappelllawfirm.com Sun Aug 26 17:26:06 2001 From: cmc at chappelllawfirm.com (Cherie M. Chappell) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:26:06 -0500 Subject: Brian West - Defense Press Release Message-ID: Defense Press Release - For Immediate Release In response to U.S. Attorney Sheldon (Shelly) J. Sperling's web posted News Release of 8/24/01, posted at http://www.politechbot.com/p-02430.html Mr. Brian West's defense team makes the following response: It appears from the facts of this case that Mr. West was allegedly using Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Microsoft FrontPage software (all registered trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation) when he was inadvertently exposed to the Poteau Daily News & Sun's website directory tree. The web hosting provider for the Poteau Daily News & Sun, Cyberlink, was also allegedly running Microsoft NT 4.0 - IIS and Microsoft FrontPage with server extensions enabled. >From these facts it appears that Microsoft's software may have caused this unfortunate situation to occur. Mr. Sperling or the Federal Bureau of Investigation may be wise to investigate Microsoft as a possible co-defendant or party in this case. It appears that Microsoft's software at issue in this case was developed and/or produced after the original October 1984 enactment of the statute. If this case goes to trial, the Microsoft personnel who developed these programs will likely be subpoenaed as witnesses by Mr. West's defense team. Or if it is found that this software contributed to, participated in or caused the events under investigation to occur, Microsoft could be indicted under the same statute. It may be appropriate to ask Microsoft to recall these potentially statute-violating products from the market or to provide patches to all of the affected software owners, worldwide. (The language of the statute provides for worldwide jurisdictional authority - if the computer is "used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication".) This case may also involve Oklahoma state antitrust issues. Under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1030(a)(2)(C), the federal statute under which the federal investigation against Mr. West is proceeding, it is a crime for: "Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;" The statute also provides definitions for certain key phrases used in the statute. 18 USC 1030(e): As used in this section - (1) the term ''computer'' means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device; (2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer - (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication; (6) the term ''exceeds authorized access'' means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter; This statute may be fatally flawed. First, there is a question of the Constitutionality of this statue under the 1st and 9th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Second, everyone who places Cookies on millions of computers around the world without the authorization of internet users could be criminally prosecuted under this statute, particularly in light of the statute's definitions of "protected computer" and "exceed authorized access." Third, senders of certain kinds of SPAM (not the lunch meat) may also be subjected to criminal prosecution under this statute. Every U.S. Attorney in the country may have the power to criminally prosecute SPAM'ers under this statute. Although Mr. Sperling notes in his posting (cited above) that, "[t]he question under investigation is whether valuable intellectual property has been improperly converted" he should note that the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act allowing criminal prosecution for merely looking at or caching code do not apply in this case, as that particular portion of the DMCA was not enacted until October 2000, a full nine months after the events unfolded in Mr. West's case. Cyberlink or it's owner(s) may be investigated by the Office of Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson for possible criminal antitrust violations under Oklahoma law (79 O.S. 203(A) and (B)) http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeID=89728 From the facts in this case, it appears that Cyberlink allegedly exercised it's monopoly market power in the Poteau internet service provider market and allegedly attempted to prevent Mr. West's company from gaining entry into that market by allegedly misinforming law enforcement about Mr. West's contact and involvement with the website of the Poteau Daily News & Sun. Mr. West's defense team has decided to issue this press release in response to Mr. Sperling's press release that was web posted at 21:01 (9:07pm) on Friday, August 24, 2001, at http://www.politechbot.com/p-02430.html and because Mr. West's situation has generated a great deal of public interest. Mr. West and his defense team thank you for your interest in his situation. -Cherie M. Chappell and Kenneth R. Poland For further information contact: Cherie M. Chappell, Esq. Chappell Law Firm, P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 5243 Edmond, OK 73083-5243 405.340.7755 voice 405.340.7757 fax Email: cmc at chappelllawfirm.com URL: www.chappelllawfirm.com ******** From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 20:11:00 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:11:00 -0700 Subject: Thinking About the Crypto Unthinkable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108270313.f7R3D2f16257@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 07:15 PM, Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: > On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 02:46 PM, Faustine wrote: > >> ...But the ones I really admire are the mathematician-analysts, the >> hard- > science analysts: they tend not to hog the limelight like some of their > more voluble counterparts, but their influence is still enormous. > >> I'd be interesting in hearing whom you think are good examples. > > Herman Kahn, Thomas Schelling, John Nash. You already mentioned von > Neumann, he was the first to come to mind. Yes, we talk about these guys here. I read "On Thermonuclear War" in the 60s (well, I skimmed most of the "escalation ladder" details). Schelling points figure heavily into many of our analyses, and Nash equilbria are just that... (BTW, there's at least one good book describing Nash's swerve into insanity and his road back.) This said, I wouldn't advise _anyone_ to study "policy" (or its earlier incarnations, "Operations Research." "Systems Analysis," or the utterly execrable "General Systems," a la Bertanlanffy). Guys like Kahn and Schelling and Nash were mathematicians who happened to be in on the founding of a hot field in the 50s: game theory. Von Neumann and Morgenstern actually founded it, but the heyday was when RAND, Hudson, etc. were doing studies of nuclear war, disarmament, games of chicken, and so on. This has all been pretty much explored now, and these think tanks are pale imitations of their former selves. Certainly they contribute very little to "policy" of the sort of interest to us. (There may be applications...as we have talked about for many years. See the archives, searching on "game theory." However, this will come from someone versed in various kinds of game theory approaches who turns his gaze to crypto games. Likely to come from a mathematically-inclined person, unlikely to come from a sociology/poli sci/policy grad student.) If there are Herman Kahns out there, thinking about the crypto unthinkable, they are probably us. Not to put too fine a point on it. > Given that most all the people on your list and mine are precisely what > the > author was driving at, I think the "Super Analyst" approach is certainly > worth aspiring to. And as far as I've been able to tell, policy analysis > PhD programs offer the most flexible way to pursue a multidisciplinary, > scientific approach while striking a good balance between the > theoretical > and the practical. Well, good luck. I disagree. I can't see someone coming out of a Ph.D. program in "super analysis" being magically endowed with the skills to influence policy. An obvious point that perhaps needs to be emphasized: all of those scientist-policy wonks we have discussed were first and foremost brilliant scientists. Their discoveries gave them cachet, not a major in "general analysis." Do the math, so to speak. --Tim May From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Sun Aug 26 23:48:23 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:48:23 -1000 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <200108270429.f7R4TBf16569@slack.lne.com> References: <20010827000601.A14969@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010826204529.022a0560@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 21:27 8/26/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:06 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 10:15:19PM -0400, Faustine wrote, quoting Tim: >>> >>>> Do you think you are preparing to have "enormous influence" on policy? >>> >>> I'm preparing to try. >> >> If you want to have "enormous influence" on policy, you'd be well >> advised to spend your time flirting with a member of the appropriate >> sex in the administration, or perhaps the Senate leadership, offering >> the appropriate sexual favors, then vie for a position as a policy >> aide somewhere. A law degree will be a big help. >> >> Not entirely joking, > >Are you saying Anne Coulter has a big influence on Bush policy? Are you saying that Anne Coulter flirts with and gives sexual favors to someone in the Bush administration? Who in the Bush administration? I've only seen her flirting on Hannity and Colmes. Reese From juicy at melontraffickers.com Sun Aug 26 21:09:12 2001 From: juicy at melontraffickers.com (A. Melon) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:09:12 -0700 Subject: nodes Message-ID: I'm a little bemused by the fact that there has been literally no comment on the closing of the cyberpass.net node of the list, and none before that on the disappearing without even so much as a notice by the admin of openpgp.net. Doesn't this seem at all odd to anyone else? Lance also shutdown the remailer function at anonymizer -- is he leaving the cypherpunk world altogether? Anyone know what happened to Geiger? From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Aug 26 12:12:15 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:12:15 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: which remailer to install? (fwd) Message-ID: Question: is this thing reliable? ftp://ftp.zedz.net/pub/crypto/remailer/mixmaster/Mix.3.0.beta/mix-2.9b23.tar.gz MD5 at my end is ca4e402bff488b909380793914769220 TIA. From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 21:25:20 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:25:20 -0700 Subject: nodes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:09 PM, A. Melon wrote: > I'm a little bemused by the fact that there has been > literally no comment on the closing of the cyberpass.net > node of the list, and none before that on the disappearing > without even so much as a notice by the admin of openpgp.net. > Doesn't this seem at all odd to anyone else? Lance also > shutdown the remailer function at anonymizer -- is he leaving > the cypherpunk world altogether? Anyone know what happened to > Geiger? > Lance has not posted a message to the Cypherpunks list in several years, maybe more, that I can recall. He bought the Anonymizer code from C2 and Sameer. However, he lives on by being on the Organizing Committee of the P.E.T. Workshop. Draw your own conclusions, --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Sun Aug 26 21:27:12 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:27:12 -0700 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <20010827000601.A14969@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108270429.f7R4TBf16569@slack.lne.com> On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:06 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 10:15:19PM -0400, Faustine wrote, quoting Tim: >> >>> Do you think you are preparing to have "enormous influence" on policy? >> >> I'm preparing to try. > > If you want to have "enormous influence" on policy, you'd be well > advised > to spend your time flirting with a member of the appropriate sex in > the administration, or perhaps the Senate leadership, offering the > appropriate sexual favors, then vie for a position as a policy aide > somewhere. A law degree will be a big help. > > Not entirely joking, > Are you saying Anne Coulter has a big influence on Bush policy? --Tim May From declan at well.com Sun Aug 26 19:02:49 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:02:49 -0400 Subject: FC: Brian K. West's defense lawyer replies to U.S. Attorney Message-ID: ******** From a3495 at cotse.com Sun Aug 26 19:15:19 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money Message-ID: Tim wrote: On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 02:46 PM, Faustine wrote: > ...But the ones I really admire are the mathematician-analysts, the hard- science analysts: they tend not to hog the limelight like some of their more voluble counterparts, but their influence is still enormous. >I'd be interesting in hearing whom you think are good examples. Herman Kahn, Thomas Schelling, John Nash. You already mentioned von Neumann, he was the first to come to mind. >But the typical "mathematician-analyst" coming out of a typical grad >program, even a high-reputation grad program, is not going to have >"enormous influence." A vanishingly small fraction will, in fact. Unfortunately, you're probably right. But in an earlier post I brought up an essay entitled 'Intelligence and the Information Revolution' which advocates the creation of analysis programs that suprass old barriers of department and specialty to create what the author termed 'Super Analysts'. If I can find a .pdf copy, I'll post a link, it really is interesting. Given that most all the people on your list and mine are precisely what the author was driving at, I think the "Super Analyst" approach is certainly worth aspiring to. And as far as I've been able to tell, policy analysis PhD programs offer the most flexible way to pursue a multidisciplinary, scientific approach while striking a good balance between the theoretical and the practical. How well this kind of approach will fit in with the contemporary institutional climate remains to be seen, but on an individual level, you have precious little to lose. (yeah, I know: just "time" and "money". I think the potential payoffs make it worth the risk, YMMV.) >Look, while you condemn all the anonymous and pseudonymous posts here, >we know zero about who you are, where you are, what you do, except that >you're probably some kind of intern who surfs the Net while your >employer for the summer is paying you do some kind of study. Anyone who read my posts carefully probably remembers I already said I'm an assistant research analyst and PhD student. Believe whatever you want; I've said plenty. And in a real sense, it doesn't matter: if my posts are weak, any appeal to credentialism isn't going to make them any stronger. >Do you think you are preparing to have "enormous influence" on policy? I'm preparing to try. >Do you think the superdupercomputer you say you want to assemble out of >old machines will help you in some magical way in this goal? Of course not, it's a tool like any other. You seem to be trying to extract some kind of entertaining kookery from me that just isn't there. >I know a couple of ex-CIA "mathematician-analysts" who were deemed tops >in their classes. One is now headed out to the Bay Area to do something >more useful. Another I've lost track of. Neither seems to have had >"enormous influence" on policy. You can have an enormous influence on policy without producing a "single great work" or "grand project" everyone can point to as being influential. I'm hoping that doing work in policy analysis will help put me in a position to make as much of a difference as I can. I'm not fooling myself as to the likelihood of actually succeeding at any of the things I have in mind, but where's the sense in giving up before you ever get started. > It's kind of interesting to see how the field evolved and grew out of > the strictly military/operations research stuff in the 50s into what it is now. It's still evolving, which is part of what makes it so exciting. I don't think what I'm doing is any easier than law school, quite the contrary! > Maybe it's better to say it *can* be easier than law school--and often > is--but doesn't have to be if you're in the right place and have some > purpose behind your choices. > And I hope I didn't sound too down on studying law. I took a graduate > class in constitutional law myself and spent a semester learning to write > briefs, getting acquainted with West's Law Finder, etc. just because it's >so important. I'd definitely recommend that much to anyone. >>The children shall lead us... I think you misspelled "whippersnappers". ~Faustine. From nudecelebs at ihug.com.au Sun Aug 26 22:17:02 2001 From: nudecelebs at ihug.com.au (nudecelebs at ihug.com.au) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:17:02 Subject: Lara Crofts Tomb Gets Raided! Message-ID: <630.372287.816314@ihug.com.au> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3800 bytes Desc: not available URL: From declan at well.com Sun Aug 26 19:19:50 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:19:50 -0400 Subject: Brian K. West's defense lawyer replies to U.S. Attorney Message-ID: <20010826221950.A7872@cluebot.com> This is hysterical and worth a read. Talk about a fiery defense counsel! --Declan ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh ----- From declan at well.com Sun Aug 26 21:06:01 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:06:01 -0400 Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: ; from a3495@cotse.com on Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 10:15:19PM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20010827000601.A14969@cluebot.com> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 10:15:19PM -0400, Faustine wrote, quoting Tim: > > >Do you think you are preparing to have "enormous influence" on policy? > > I'm preparing to try. If you want to have "enormous influence" on policy, you'd be well advised to spend your time flirting with a member of the appropriate sex in the administration, or perhaps the Senate leadership, offering the appropriate sexual favors, then vie for a position as a policy aide somewhere. A law degree will be a big help. Not entirely joking, Declan From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Sun Aug 26 22:13:54 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:13:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: nodes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, A. Melon wrote: > I'm a little bemused by the fact that there has been > literally no comment on the closing of the cyberpass.net > node of the list, and none before that on the disappearing > without even so much as a notice by the admin of openpgp.net. I noticed the delivery failures... > Doesn't this seem at all odd to anyone else? No, the amount of communication between admins between setups and the rare problem is nil. > Lance also shutdown the remailer function at anonymizer -- is he leaving > the cypherpunk world altogether? Anyone know what happened to > Geiger? ???? -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill.stewart at pobox.com Mon Aug 27 00:25:43 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:25:43 -0700 Subject: Thinking About the Crypto Unthinkable In-Reply-To: <200108270313.f7R3D2f16257@slack.lne.com> References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010827001509.034c7410@idiom.com> At 08:11 PM 08/26/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >This said, I wouldn't advise _anyone_ to study "policy" >(or its earlier incarnations, "Operations Research." >"Systems Analysis," or the utterly execrable "General Systems," a la >Bertanlanffy). Hey, I resemble that remark (Undergrad and Master's degree on Operations Research.) Cool subset of applied mathematics - it touches on enough different fields, including the algorithm-analysis stuff that overlaps computer science and complexity theory, probability and statistics, simulation, scheduling, inventory theory, graph theory, measure theory, abstract stuff like matroids. Good for looking at systems design, and it worked well for me, though you risk being too generalist and not specific enough at anything. Unfortunately the whole field of Linear Programming changed just about the time I left college :-), with Karmarkar's work showing that LP could be done in polynomial time (though with a big ugly constant multiplier that means that the theoretically-exponential Simplex algorithm tends to converge faster.) There was work from operations research that was on the rather bogus side, like the stuff that encouraged development of square pineapples because the cans fit tighter on shelves than round ones.... From mean-green at hushmail.com Mon Aug 27 03:24:52 2001 From: mean-green at hushmail.com (mean-green at hushmail.com) Date: Mon Aug 27 03:24:52 PDT 2001 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <200108271022.f7RAMq376369@mailserver1.hushmail.com> At 10:46 AM 8/26/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: >On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 09:13 AM, mean-green at hushmail.com wrote: >> Right on target. There is one aspect to this loss of nerve not >> mentioned: the correlation between those with the means and interest to >>pursue these avenues and those with merely the interest. > >There are a couple of points to make on this issue: > >First, the "correlation of interests" situation is a well-solved problem. Those with the financial means (and maybe some political/technical interest) set up a company and hire those with the technical abilities and interest. The company may be self-funded by the founders, or outside investors may be sought. > >However, this is not so easy to do when it comes to these technologies. ZKS did it and raised, we hear, something like $60 million. Quite a warchest for untraceability tools. ZKS has been much-discussed here. > >There are some major obstacles with such a public company: > >1. Patents and IP in general. Doing digital cash without using Chaum's blinding patent may be tough. (Some of the "agnostic" approaches discussed here may work, technically, but will probably still be litigated. A public company is a public target. The current owners of the Chaum patent, a Canadian company IIRC, will not look dispassionately on other companies doing an end-run.) > >2. A public company or traceable group of developers will become targets. The attacks could be just simple legal ones, but could range up to RICO and beyond. "Pedophile-grade untraceability" is powerful stuff. How long before Mojo faces lawsuits analogous to what Napster faced? Very unlikely unless it raises to challenge the current crop of Napster replacements. > >(Napster is a good example of this. Utter traceability, of both music traders and the company itself. Those who downloaded or uploaded music got nastygrams and threats of civil action, and the company itself was sued and now faces extinction. It may be that anyone developing such tools should just give up on the idea of becoming a dot com tycoon and instead release products untraceably...perhaps benefitting in other ways.) > >> One of this list's members shopped here and elsewhere a few years back >> for participation in building a DBC-based payment and value system. He >> had assembled a team with the banking experience, needing the >> technology implementors. None were willing to put their talents to the >> test. They all nodded regarding the need for such a facility but none <> would expend any efforts. > >If you are talking about Bob Hettinga, there are many things one could say about his schemes and plans. Actually, I was referring to Steve Schear. He worked at Citicorp for some time and attracted a number of former mid and senior VISA people, one help found Sonnet Financial an online foreign exchange service, to work for First eCache. >I'm more impressed with what another person is actually doing: Orlin Grabbe. Do some Web searches. Orlin has good banking credentials himself (Wharton, coined the term "regulatory arbitrage"), good libertarian credentials (a powerful newsletter for many years), some technical abilities (writes code), has been willing to move to places like Costa Rica, and, most importantly, he UNDERSTANDS the "sweet spot" argument. Steve has also argued these points. >Bob H., in my opinion, got too fixated on coining new acronyms and in flitting around to various lists and focussed in on the wrong end of the cost/benefit continuum. He kept claiming the DBC or E$bux or whatever would be cheaper to use than real money. >Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public nexus of attack, and then deploy systems which target that high-value sweet spot. The real bankers and the regulators won't allow such things into the official banking system. (Why do people think the banking system will embrace "digital bearer bonds" having untraceability features when true bearer bonds were eliminated years ago?) I believe First eCache intended to be compliant with know your customer regs, depending upon independent market makers and money changers to provide the necessary indirection for unlinkability. If so it would difficult for the banking system to easily exclude them. In the same down.way the regulators have had a very difficult time bringing the Black Market Peso Exchange down. Free, secure Web-based email, now OpenPGP compliant - www.hushmail.com From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Mon Aug 27 09:14:46 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 06:14:46 -1000 Subject: nodes In-Reply-To: <20010827082546.B5646@cluebot.com> References: <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com> <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827060521.021d40e0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 08:25 8/27/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:25:20PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> Lance has not posted a message to the Cypherpunks list in several >> years, maybe more, that I can recall. > >Lance did post a message in the last month announcing that his cpunx >node was going down. Too much bandwidth devoted to spam, he said. >Other than that, I haven't seen him enter discussions in years, as you >said. I do not recall the spam attribution, but I've delved and quote it below for posterity. It was the fact that the cyberpass node lost its list of screibers, then that it would go down for days at a time, that motivated me to jump ship. Especially since there was no reply and no explanation for any of the above occurrences. I figured Lance wanted to shut that node down and move on to other things. Reese From declan at well.com Mon Aug 27 05:25:46 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:25:46 -0400 Subject: nodes In-Reply-To: <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:25:20PM -0700 References: <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010827082546.B5646@cluebot.com> On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:25:20PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > Lance has not posted a message to the Cypherpunks list in several years, > maybe more, that I can recall. Lance did post a message in the last month announcing that his cpunx node was going down. Too much bandwidth devoted to spam, he said. Other than that, I haven't seen him enter discussions in years, as you said. -Declan From declan at well.com Mon Aug 27 05:39:39 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:39:39 -0400 Subject: biochemwomdterror in dc Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010827083919.0215fd90@mail.well.com> today... TERRORIST ATTACKS Defense Department (DOD), Office of the Secretary of Defense (F.R. Page 42998) Meeting of the Advisory Panel To Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, to run August 27-28. Location: RAND, 1200 South Hayes St., Arlington, VA. 12 noon Contact: 703-413-1100, ext. 5282 From declan at well.com Mon Aug 27 05:40:07 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:40:07 -0400 Subject: biochemwomd crop terror in dc Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010827083952.0215b420@mail.well.com> also today... AGRICULTURE National Academy of Science (NAS) Agriculture and Natural Resources Board meeting on "Defining Science-based Concerns Associated with the Products of Animal Biotechnology," August 27-28. Highlights: 1:15 p.m. - Open session Location: NAS Building, 2100 C St., NW. Contact: Kim Waddell, 202-334-3889, kwaddell at nas.edu, or http://www4.nationalacademies.org From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 27 09:25:07 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:25:07 -0700 Subject: biochemwomdterror in dc In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010827083919.0215fd90@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <200108271627.f7RGROf18667@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 05:39 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > today... > > TERRORIST ATTACKS Defense Department (DOD), Office of the Secretary of > Defense (F.R. Page 42998) Meeting of the Advisory Panel To Assess the > Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving > Weapons of Mass Destruction, to run August 27-28. Location: RAND, 1200 > South Hayes St., Arlington, VA. 12 noon Contact: 703-413-1100, ext. 5282 I've been seeing Declan forward a bunch of these terse paragraphs announcing these meetings. I never see any summaries of what was said. Anyone ever attend? (If they're closed to the public or journalists, why forward so many announcements of them?) Or is this some stego channel I am missing? --Puzzled in Corralitos From declan at well.com Mon Aug 27 06:31:37 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:31:37 -0400 Subject: hushmail's misery Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010827093124.0210aec0@mail.well.com> http://www.silicon.com/public/door?REQUNIQ=998901774&6004REQEVENT=&REQINT1=46830&REQSTR1=newsnow HushMail: The misery continues 2001-08-27 04:47:14 From bob at black.org Mon Aug 27 09:44:33 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:44:33 -0700 Subject: D'oh ---Scarfo's password was his dad's number Message-ID: <3B8A78F0.E6017CD@black.org> Unable to crack the encryption code without a password, agents went back again with a search warrant and placed on his computer a high-tech device called a key logger, which monitors every keystroke. After nearly two months of surveillance, the FBI cracked his password: nds09813-050. A source close to the case later confirmed that it's Scarfo's father's prison identification number. The Feds had it all the time. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2001/nf20010823_686.htm From artcamp at artcamp.com.mx Mon Aug 27 08:54:49 2001 From: artcamp at artcamp.com.mx (Artcamp SC de RL) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:54:49 -0500 Subject: our Aztec Calendar materials Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010827105424.01f21140@www.artcamp.com.mx> Greetings from our rural womens' artisans cooperative in Guerrero Mexico, please visit our new website - we have published our Aztec Calendar materials http://www.artcamp.com.mx/AZ/0.html **Please** let us know what you think about it any ideas for improvements; Here is a link to the Artcamp home page www.artcamp.com.mx which features a wonderful story about the city of Taxco. Review the Fundraising Programs we've developed. We are reliable producers and serious about business; the people here need work to support our families. Thank you for taking the time to read this email and for taking interest in our cooperative. Sincerely, Rosalinda Mejia Barón Artcamp SC de RL "Artesanas Campesinas" here are some pictures of us http://www.artcamp.com.mx/FG/c8.html Please REPRODUCE or POST this NOTICE - gracias from the women of Artcamp! From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 27 12:56:05 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:56:05 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108271958.f7RJwNf19491@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Tim May writes: >> Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools >> for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' >> sweet >> spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom >> fighters >> in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control >> information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in >> Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad >> governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, >> think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are >> forbidden to. > > It is good to see some frank discussion of morality here. Too often > cypherpunks seem to assume that anything that can be done, should be > done. > > However on closer examination it's not clear that many of the examples > above satisfy both financial and moral constraints. > > "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money > do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to > spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys aren't > rolling in dough. The IRA and the Real IRA have a lot of money, as the Brits have been complaining about recently. Osama bin Laden is said to control more than a billion dollars. And so on. I disagree with you assertion that "these guys aren't rolling in dough." (Note that I am _not_ saying they are likely to start using a student project remailer operating out of dorm room in Schenectady. A different issue.) > "Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments." The main > revolutionaries > who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from > their revolution. These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants > so they can set themselves up as new tyrants. It is people like this > who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology. You're not > making the world a better place by giving them tools. You make the assumption that overthrowing, say, the PRC or USSR governments, would result in a "worse or just as bad" regime. I disagree. And the same tools are still available to deconstruct interim replacement regimes. > "Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries." > Again, > selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make > anyone rich. Planned Parenthood is not envisaged as the user.... > > The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph: > morality, in addition to value and cost. Many of the most lucrative > potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable. > If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a > few application areas (with the additional complication that few people > will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little > overlap). The technology is agnostic to "morality." Choate argues that at least 5 or 6 axes are needed. Ever the nitwit, he fails to realize that the main debate doesn't even use the _two_ that I have outlined. Yes, I know about phase spaces and multi-dimensional diagrams. But given that the debate about privacy tools is mired at the 1D level ("untracebility good, traceability bad...why don't the proles see this?"), graphing the major users and suppliers on the 2D graph I outlined is a step in the right direction. It goes a long way to explaining why people will spend thousands to fly to the Caymans to set up a bank account while others won't even bother using PGP. You want to add "morality" to the chart. Fine, except I don't see how it gives different answers than my chart gave. --Tim May From info at giganetstore.com Mon Aug 27 05:16:45 2001 From: info at giganetstore.com (info at giganetstore.com) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:16:45 +0100 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?O_Batatinha_e_o_Companhia_v=E3o_=E1_Escola.?= Message-ID: <030764616121b81WWWSHOPENS@wwwshopens.giganetstore.com> O Batatinha e o Companhia vão á Escola... e levam todo o material que vão precisar. Vamos ver o que eles vão levar. ----- Mochila Média Batatoon Espectacular mochila Batatoon para acompanhar as crianças na escola, lavável e de material muito resistente. É optima para as maiores palhaçadas ! Clique Aqui! ----- Estojo completo Batatoon É muito completo este estojo Batatoon pois tem lapís-de-cor, canetas para pintar, borracha e régua. Todo o material necessário para as crianças poderem desenhar os seus palhaços preferidos. Clique Aqui! ----- Lancheira Batatoon Os Amigos do Batatinha e Companhia vão acompanhar os mais pequenos na hora do lanche. Se as crianças sujarem a sua lancheira não vai haver problema pois é lavável e de material resistente. Clique Aqui! ----- Carteira Batatoon As crianças podem agora guardar o seu dinheiro nesta espectacular carteira Batatoon. Com um sistema de fechar divertido, vão poder levar sempre consigo os seus amigos palhaços. Clique Aqui! ----- Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http:\\www.giganetstore.com , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6276 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bob at black.org Mon Aug 27 14:48:33 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:48:33 -0700 Subject: hacking NJ: All your professionals are ours Message-ID: <3B8AC031.F134DEAF@black.org> Wired.com pointed to http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/24/nyregion/24VOTE.html which is about putting public records online. This pointed to http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/director.htm which lists 'professionals' that NJ tracks. Heh, All their professionals are 0urs. A few minutes using the HTML CIRCUMVENTION/CRACKING tool "Netscape" and fnord "Emacs" and we've got a nice catalog. Physicians, architects, veterinarians, master plumbers, beauticians of NJ, your info is toast. The web page limits you to, e.g., 800 physicians per surname search; yet a search for "S" surnames yields 6974 MDs. How-to: Go there, pick a profession, e.g., doctors at http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/bme/docdir.htm Save as local, and edit the HTML. 1. Find "POST". Prefix http://www.state.nj.us to the relative CGI URL earlier in that line. 2. Find "OPTION". Add a few zeroes to the number of hit results there. Open the *local*, edited page in a browser. Enter a letter, e.g., "s" and select the larger number of results to return. If you enter "." you get 59,192 matches. All the licensed MDs in NJ. Over 23M of HTML from A to T.... NameTERZUOLI,ROBERT,J Business Name Address2481 STUART ST , BROOKLYN NY, 11229-5815 License NumberMA058265 Disciplinary HistoryNone StatusInactive
NameTESAR,JAMES,D Business Name Address1002 VILLAGE LN , WINTER PARK FL, 32792-3416 License NumberMA044222 Disciplinary HistoryNone StatusExpired
NameTESCHNER,BERNARD Business Name Address12 GREENRIDGE AVE , WHITE PLAINS NY, 10605-1238 License NumberMA011599 Disciplinary HistoryNone StatusInactive
NameTESLER,MAX,A Business Name Address661 PALISADE AVE , ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS NJ, 07632-1800 License NumberMA028017 Disciplinary HistoryNone StatusDeceased
NameTESLUK,GREGORY,C Business Name AddressHOPKINSON HOUSE 2104 WASHNGTN , SQUARE SO PHILA PA, 19106 License NumberMA041360 Disciplinary HistoryNone StatusExpired From aimee.farr at pobox.com Mon Aug 27 14:00:55 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:00:55 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108260458.f7Q4wdf11683@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: Tim May: > So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be > well-received: "BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable > System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets. No, you want E.E.T. -- "Espionage-enhancing Technologies." Some of you need a lawyer on your shoulder. Like a little parrot. *squawk!* ECPA Section 2516(1)(p); FISA, if that includes being controlled by aliens from outer-space; USC Title 18 1831. >Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability. Believe me, I am. Section 1831 Economic espionage (a) In General - Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly - (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret, (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization, (4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), or (5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. Section 1837 Applicability to conduct outside the United States This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if (1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States, or an organization organized under the laws of the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof-, or (2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States. Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason, espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or retaliating against Federal officials, a transactional environment for nuclear and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms trafficking....sweet spots. *shakes head* This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) > think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > forbidden to. I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government. o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications. o For it to work in a "secrets market," you would need to tap the ground channels and have the analytics. Intelligence isn't a Chia pet..."just add BlackNet and watch it grow!" Surely, untraceability does not equivocate to instant source cultivation. o You can get what you need by listening to the right person. Once you've spotted and recruited the right person, THEN you need a transactional channel, but only if you want to pursue a source relationship -- and you usually do. You need analysis, not information. The problem isn't the lack of a fence -- but the difficulty in defining your collection goals, spotting the right person, knowing what to elicit, and having the analytics to refine an intelligence product. Self-offerings are viewed with suspicion. Can a third-party spot talent for you? Talent: businessmen, academics and informants. That's a very HUMAN high-touch problem. o A holistic solution would cut down the costs of stealth, transfer risk, and possibly would assist in spotting, but I don't know that zero-contact is all it is represented to be. Is the equivalent of an anon e-bay going to answer your strategic issues? You have to define and meet your collection goals. o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like blinded biometrics. o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor, or an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're left with the criminal element, IRA and so forth. Most move product and still have distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are buying arms with offshore debit cards. o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context. This should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather than something subversive. It's like the fall of Knights Templar in here. What happened to the pilgrims' safe passage? ~Aimee L'Empireur doit jtre considiri comme le messie des idies nouvelles. From a3495 at cotse.com Mon Aug 27 13:11:02 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:11:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: biochemwomdterror in dc Message-ID: Tim wrote: On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 05:39 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > TERRORIST ATTACKS Defense Department (DOD), Office of the Secretary of > Defense (F.R. Page 42998) Meeting of the Advisory Panel To Assess the > Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving > Weapons of Mass Destruction, to run August 27-28. Location: RAND, 1200 > South Hayes St., Arlington, VA. 12 noon Contact: 703-413-1100, ext. 5282 >>I've been seeing Declan forward a bunch of these terse paragraphs >>announcing these meetings. I never see any summaries of what was said. >>Anyone ever attend? (If they're closed to the public or journalists, why >>forward so many announcements of them?) Why? Because you're making a tacit admission that the fact that the panel is being conducted at all is significant--and has a good chance of making a serious impact on future policy decisions. Since RAND is 100% responsible for the real meat of any "assessment" going on, you might say the panel is part of the mechanism by which analysis gets turned into actual policy and legislation. I choose to take this (and dozens of similar panels on widely diverse subjects) as proof that RAND-style policy analysis is alive, well, and more central to the policy process than ever. Call it a "pale imitation" of the early days if you want to, but you have to admit you all aren't ignoring it. And as far as I can tell, you damn sure won't be able to ignore it in the years to come either. Given that, maybe encouraging more cypherpunk-friendly people to take the analysis route isn't such a bad idea after all. ~Faustine. From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 27 16:15:25 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:15:25 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108272317.f7RNHkf20379@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 02:00 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: > Tim May: > >> So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be >> well-received: "BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable >> System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets. > > No, you want E.E.T. -- "Espionage-enhancing Technologies." > > Some of you need a lawyer on your shoulder. Like a little parrot. > *squawk!* > ECPA Section 2516(1)(p); FISA, if that includes being controlled by > aliens > from outer-space; USC Title 18 1831. > Section 1831 Economic espionage > (a) In General - Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will > benefit > any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, > knowingly - > (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, > or > conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; > (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, > photographs, > downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, > transmits, > delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret, > (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to > have > been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without > authorization, > (4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) > through (3), or > (5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense > described > in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons > do any > act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in > subsection (b), be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more > than > 15 years, or both. > > Section 1837 Applicability to conduct outside the United States > This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United > States if > (1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent > resident > alien of the United States, or an organization organized under the laws > of > the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof-, or > (2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United > States. > > Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason, > espionage, > trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery of public officials, > concealment of assets, transmission of wagering information, murder for > hire, threatening or retaliating against Federal officials, a > transactional > environment for nuclear and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms > trafficking....sweet spots. *shakes head* Despite frequently urging newcomers to "read the archives--or at least use some search engines!," nitwits like Aimee are only just now figuring out what was crystal clear in 1992-3. No wonder she's doing scut work for the SS outpost in Waco, near Bush's Crawford ranch. --Tim May From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Mon Aug 27 15:19:11 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:19:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: OPT: How does one freenet (mobile) user find another (maybe freenet) user? Message-ID: One proposal is to build some complicated IP management network. Yuck! A primary problem is one freenet user locating another freenet user and keeping the connection live during AP changes. I believe that if this problem can be resolved the other types of connections (ie fixed IP) go away. How about a 'rendevous server'. A well known address where two users can present a 'key' to the server and when they click you open a connection. (this might be a good place for e-cash micro-mints) IP Anonymizers would be one place to start. You connect up and get your IP washed. Then you present a key to the server. It looks for an identical key(s) and build a bridge between those users. An end-to-end anonymous connection. The anonymizing layer is a bell, it's not critical. A simple IP proxy will work. This is also a good place to demonstrate the utility of a 'wrapper' around this connection with respect to moving from one node to another. As you move out of one zone into another, your IP changes. So, your system would re-connect to the above server, be anonymized and hence making it's real IP irrelevant (even if it wasn't anonymized the next step makes the actual IP moot) - all automatically. It presents a key, finds a waiting connection open and gets connected back up. The rendevous server sits patiently waiting (until some watchdog barks) for new connections and holding the old half of your connection open and waiting. In particular it looks at each half of a connection and asks (Did_they_drop_the_line? || Did_we_get_norm_close?) before it closes the resource. Otherwise it attempts to keep the connection open and in a wait state until somebody else connects up. It would be reasonable to run such a server on the AP. With respect to automation of finding other proxies and presenting keys, this could be done by having it broadcast a Proxy_alive_kicking? packet. It would then, at a users request, broadcast out to those proxies trying to find out if they have a matching key as presented by the user. If so, then the proxy servers could make a connection between themselves and bridge the users logical connection request (ie presenting a key). -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Mon Aug 27 20:33:30 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:33:30 -1000 Subject: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <200108272317.f7RNHkf20379@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827172904.02406f00@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 21:53 8/27/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: >http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/regan_complaint.html > >"...On June 21, 2001, Regan sent an email from an account >registered in his own name to an email account in the name of his wife." Who was the provider? Was this a dedicated, ISP-provided account, or was it webmail? In either case, which one? >That wouldn't be what has your little mice running in their wheels, would >it? > >> No wonder she's doing scut work for the SS outpost in Waco, near Bush's >> Crawford ranch. >> >> >> --Tim May > >Ah, Tim makes a funny. > >~Aimee From dog3 at ns.charc.net Mon Aug 27 15:35:47 2001 From: dog3 at ns.charc.net (cubic-dog) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:35:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Lawyers, Guns, and Money In-Reply-To: <20010827000601.A14969@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 10:15:19PM -0400, Faustine wrote, quoting Tim: > > > > >Do you think you are preparing to have "enormous influence" on policy? > > > > I'm preparing to try. > > If you want to have "enormous influence" on policy, you'd be well advised > to spend your time flirting with a member of the appropriate sex in > the administration, or perhaps the Senate leadership, offering the > appropriate sexual favors, then vie for a position as a policy aide > somewhere. A law degree will be a big help. > > Not entirely joking, > Declan And don't forget, you must have and give up in addition to sexual favors, lots and lots and lots and lots of money in 2, 3 and 4 thousand dollar chunks totalling a few hundred thousand a year. From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Mon Aug 27 22:03:19 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:03:19 -1000 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <200108260458.f7Q4wdf11683@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827181615.023f0430@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 16:00 8/27/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: >Tim May: > >> So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be >> well-received: "BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable >> System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets. > >No, you want E.E.T. -- "Espionage-enhancing Technologies." <...> >Section 1831 Economic espionage <...> >This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense, at the least. Mechanisms to maintain privacy and anonymity are no different, use of those same mechanisms to commit crime is not a death knell for those mechanisms just as manufacturers do not stop producing and selling vehicles that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, even though some people do speed and are ticketed or given warnings, at least. You are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo. Tim may be correct, in his assessment on your deserving what you receive. >> think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are >> forbidden to. > >I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government. > >o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications. It also has legitimate applicability for Joe Sixpack and Suzy Winecooler, who don't want a zillion ads and cookies clogging their bandwidth and cache, who don't want targetted ads or their surfing habits tracked and monitored, who certainly don't want their health insurance premiums to go up after they do research on some rare, incurable disease they are mildly curious about or after researching a more common ailment when a friend happens to be diagnosed - to lean on those old standbys. >o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like >blinded biometrics. The maintenance of privacy can be a problem, from a marketers POV, other things can be viewed as problems too, when the end consumer has proper control of self-identifying information. If the money is good, that level of authentication can be conducted in meatspace if it is truly needed - most times, it is not. >o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing >intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an >intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor, >or an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're >left with the criminal element, IRA and so forth. You leave many possible things out, you present a false summation of all the possible uses of Blacknet and maintenance of anonymity. >Most move product and still have >distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are >buying arms with offshore debit cards. This event by people acting criminally in another country (according to the rules imposed by past-rulers of that other country, heh) should be used to shape and mold US domestic policy and legislation for the care and feeding of US citizen-units how, exactly? >o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context. Bad timing? Who is disadvantaged by the timing of this discussion? Your handler said to slow the conversation down while they run some numbers and gets some surveillance in place, or something? >This should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather >than something subversive. Principle is like that. You don't like what others have to say? You should remove your own right to freedom of speech, before you attempt to censor others. (Good luck, once you've effectively removed your own right to free speech, on censoring anyone else). As a lawyer, you know or should know that most (if not all) of the most significant constitutional rights cases to be heard by the courts have involved criminals and other undesirables and unlikelies who pushed the edge of the envelope in their own defense. Just because I have a dislike for Charles Manson, does not mean I support movements to suspend all the rights affirmed under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and other of the various Amendments we collectively refer to as the Bill of Rights, for example. >It's like the fall of Knights Templar in >here. What happened to the pilgrims' safe passage? When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably isn't a pilgrim. Reese From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Mon Aug 27 22:12:28 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:12:28 -1000 Subject: nodes In-Reply-To: <20010828010659.A346@cluebot.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827060521.021d40e0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com> <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com> <20010827082546.B5646@cluebot.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010827060521.021d40e0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827191104.023f0680@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Aye. I'd be appreciative if he'd post something, so say what it was all about. At 01:06 8/28/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >It was actually bounced messages, not spam, the was the problem. That's >what he told me in private email, not on the list, my mistake. > >-Declan > > >On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:14:46AM -1000, Reese wrote: >> At 08:25 8/27/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:25:20PM -0700, Tim May wrote: >> >> Lance has not posted a message to the Cypherpunks list in several >> >> years, maybe more, that I can recall. >> > >> >Lance did post a message in the last month announcing that his cpunx >> >node was going down. Too much bandwidth devoted to spam, he said. >> >Other than that, I haven't seen him enter discussions in years, as you >> >said. >> >> I do not recall the spam attribution, but I've delved and quote it below >> for posterity. It was the fact that the cyberpass node lost its list of >> screibers, then that it would go down for days at a time, that motivated >> me to jump ship. Especially since there was no reply and no explanation >> for any of the above occurrences. I figured Lance wanted to shut that >> node down and move on to other things. >> >> Reese >> >> >> >> X-Sender: loki-mail at sirius.infonex.com >> Message-Id: >> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:51:22 -0700 >> To: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net >> From: "Lance M. Cottrell" >> Old-Subject: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net closing >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >> Subject: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net closing >> Sender: owner-cypherpunks at minder.net >> Precedence: bulk >> Return-Path: bmm at waste.minder.net >> >> The cypherpunks at cyberpass.net node of the cypherpunks list will be >> closing on Friday August 10. >> >> You should ensure that you are subscribed to a different node of the >> cypherpunks list before that time. >> >> -Lance >> >> >> Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell at anonymizer.com >> Anonymizer, Inc. President >> Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 >> www.Anonymizer.com >> >> From coolnetbiz at yahoo.com Mon Aug 27 17:23:03 2001 From: coolnetbiz at yahoo.com (coolnetbiz at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 01 19:23:03 EST Subject: The Hottest and Easiest Home Business EVER!!! Message-ID: <200108280124.VAA0000028549@aec.arcet.com> Dear Friend, May I have your permission to send you FREE information of an exciting and very profitable SELF-RUN online business? It is truly the HOTTEST and the EASIEST home business today! Inc. 500 company. Fully Automated Internet Business. You can make up to $14,000 per month in your spare time! It is NOT a chain letter, NOT an illegal get-rich-quick scam. It is a legitmate online business which has been around for over 16 YEARS! This home business is for REAL! No Hype! Please click below to receive FREE VITAL INFORMATION: Send Email To: coolnetbiz at prontomail.com You will be glad you did! Thank you and have a great day! With My Warmest Regards, --GAV From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 27 20:12:47 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:12:47 -0700 Subject: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108280315.f7S3FAf21092@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 07:53 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: > The EEA wasn't passed until 96. I failed to mention Title 18 United > States > Code, Section(s) 794(c). > > "Agents kick crypto ass." > http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/regan_complaint.html' > ....That wouldn't be what has your little mice running in their wheels, > would > it? > Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted. Not so bright, though. And you've outed yourself by not-so-subtle hints about the SS "prime rib." People like you deserve what you get. --Tim May From bill.stewart at pobox.com Mon Aug 27 20:26:40 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:26:40 -0700 Subject: Chaum's Workshop on Trustworthy Elections - this week, Tomales Bay, CA Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010827202520.02f074c0@idiom.com> OK, so it's a bit late, but I was going through recent RISKS Digests. ----- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 14:23:15 -0700 From: David Chaum Subject: Workshop on Trustworthy Elections 26-29 August 2001, Tomales Bay, California: WOTE (Workshop on Trustworthy Elections) is a small research-oriented workshop devoted to advancing technologies for election integrity and ballot secrecy, organized by David Chaum and Ronald L. Rivest. Topics include: Cryptographic protocols, computer security, audit, operational procedures, certification, tamper-resistance, document security, integrity, ballot secrecy, voter authentication, all as related to trustworthy elections. http://www.vote.caltech.edu/wote01/index.html ------------------------------ From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Mon Aug 27 23:41:51 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:41:51 -1000 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827181615.023f0430@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827202043.0216c118@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 01:02 8/28/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: >Reese wrote: > >> >This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) >> >> Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. >> Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. >> Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense, >> at the least. >> >> Mechanisms to maintain privacy and anonymity are no different, use of > >Damn it, Reese, I didn't say that. Yes, you did. Or are you now saying that what you said and what you meant are not one and the same? >Can anybody here read between the lines? >Helloooo? *echo-echo-echo* Too many things have gone away under the banner of "saving the children" and there are many more things on the chopping block, either with that, or with some similar FUD as the overarching mantra keeping them there. Do you deny that you presented criminal use of technology as a vehicle leading to and excuse for the dismantling of that technology? I'm saying that the technology should be maintained even though the potential for abuse exists, instead of being all touchy-feely about it dismantling it because the potential for abuse exists. I don't want a nerfy world with big brother or big sister making everything warm, friendly and safe. >> You are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various >> mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way >> of the dodo. > >That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. >However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and >damn sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for >shopping out secrets to Libya. What does this paragraph mean then? >Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason, >espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery >of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of >wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or retaliating >against Federal officials, a transactional environment for nuclear >and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms trafficking....sweet spots. >*shakes head* > >This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) And what is that smiley on the end all about? >>>It's like the fall of Knights Templar in >>>here. What happened to the pilgrims' safe passage? >> >>When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it >>probably isn't a pilgrim. > >Real ducks neither quack nor waddle, Reese. Which says nothing about ducks not passing for pilgrims. >I'm going to go outside now, and talk to snails. > >~Aimee From tcmay at got.net Mon Aug 27 21:35:47 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:35:47 -0700 Subject: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108280438.f7S4c4f21383@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 09:22 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: >> Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted. > > Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted. > > Trying to keep people out of trouble is a "provocateur?" Gee, sorry to > dampen your conspiracy. > > I posted Regan because it was directly relevant to this discussion, and > it > makes a couple of points -- some of which run in your favor. > > Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in light of > world > events, I don't see how you could call ME a provocateur. My jibe was > good-natured. You keep posting the equivalent of classified ads. I know > who > wants this shit now, and it's not "little bad men. You complained a few weeks ago about the timing of the "help me make bombz" posts...as if we have any choice about when AOL-accounted narcs post such requests. And now, bizarrely, you think the "timing" of a reference to Blacknet, which was deployed in 1993, is "bad timing." Fuck off, twit. --Tim May From nobody at dizum.com Mon Aug 27 12:40:09 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:40:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Tim May writes: > Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools > for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet > spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters > in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control > information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in > Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad > governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, > think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > forbidden to. It is good to see some frank discussion of morality here. Too often cypherpunks seem to assume that anything that can be done, should be done. However on closer examination it's not clear that many of the examples above satisfy both financial and moral constraints. "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough. "Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments." The main revolutionaries who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from their revolution. These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants so they can set themselves up as new tyrants. It is people like this who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology. You're not making the world a better place by giving them tools. "Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries." Again, selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make anyone rich. "Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts." Financial privacy is in fact potentially big business, but let's face it, most of the customers today are not Jews fearing confiscation by anti-semitic governments. That's not in the cards. Most of the money will be tainted, and even if it is largely drug money and you don't think drugs should be illegal, much drug money is dirty even by libertarian standards. It is used for bribes, for coercion, even for murder. Facilitating such activities does not help to make drugs legal, it just gives murdering drug lords more wealth and power and provides justification for increasing military funding to fight the drug war. "People avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes." This is a good one, lots of customers, plenty of money, few moral problems. Even if you support some government programs, it will take a long time before enough people adopt privacy protection tools that it could have a significant impact on government tax revenues. The big problem here is coming up with the a technology that can do the job. "People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to." Morally this one seems OK. In a net already filled with bogus medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse. On the other hand it's not clear that the existing prohibitions are hurting anyone's bottom line. How much can you really expect to make by selling forbidden advice? It's not clear that there is much of a market for this technology but possibly someone could find a killer app here. The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph: morality, in addition to value and cost. Many of the most lucrative potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable. If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a few application areas (with the additional complication that few people will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little overlap). From honig at sprynet.com Mon Aug 27 21:42:51 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:42:51 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010827214251.0084a570@pop.sprynet.com> At 09:40 PM 8/27/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: >"People selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden >to." Morally this one seems OK. In a net already filled with bogus >medical and legal advice it can't make things much worse. On the other >hand it's not clear that the existing prohibitions are hurting anyone's >bottom line. In some US states, you can be prohibited from working for a competitor for some time after you leave. Combine that with telecommuting. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Mon Aug 27 19:53:36 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:53:36 -0500 Subject: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108272317.f7RNHkf20379@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: > Despite frequently urging newcomers to "read the archives--or at least > use some search engines!," nitwits like Aimee are only just now figuring > out what was crystal clear in 1992-3. The EEA wasn't passed until 96. I failed to mention Title 18 United States Code, Section(s) 794(c). "Agents kick crypto ass." http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/regan_complaint.html His training in the Air Force included cryptanalysis...In the Fall of 2000, reliable source information indicated....Also in the Fall of 2000, reliable source information.... The encrypted messages, which were decrypted by the U.S. government,.... On June 21, 2001, Regan sent an email from an account registered in his own name to an email account in the name of his wife. The email attached one page of alphanumeric encryption key that appears to be similar to the encryption technique described in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, above....Regan was confronted by FBI special agents at the airport at approximately 5:35 p.m. In response to a question from this affiant, Regan denied knowledge of cryptology, coding and decoding. However, when shown photographs of the alphanumeric tables, which appear to be related to cryptology, which tables had been in his carry-on bag, he stated "This is my stuff." Regan was arrested shortly thereafter....Also in Regan's carry-on bag when he was stopped by the FBI at Dulles Airport on August 23, 2001, was a hand-held global positioning system ("GPS"). Based on my training and experience in intelligence matters, I know that a GPS unit can be used to locate a specific site for drop or signal sites." That wouldn't be what has your little mice running in their wheels, would it? > No wonder she's doing scut work for the SS outpost in Waco, near Bush's > Crawford ranch. > > > --Tim May Ah, Tim makes a funny. ~Aimee From bhwstreet at csauto.com Mon Aug 27 22:23:51 2001 From: bhwstreet at csauto.com (Wallstreet Universe) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:23:51 -0700 Subject: 20 Free Stock Trading Lessons! Message-ID: <20010828052600.540F1211DB@mail.shakuru.com> We have recently acquired several web properties. You are receiving this as an opt-in subscriber of one of those properties in accordance with current SPAM guidelines. If you feel that you are receiving this in error, please go to http://www.csauto.com and unsubscribe. Failure to do so will result in regular receipt of our mailings - Thank you for your understanding. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> AUGUST 28 - THE WALLSTREET REPORT <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> The Wallstreet Report is published twice per week. It is our goal to provide you with Technical Analysis, Daily Market Updates, Cool Freebies and to pass along some Excellent Stock Profiles. Hello Serious Investors, On Monday, August 27, 2001 The market posted limited losses on an uneventful trading session. Volume continued to be anemic on both of the stock exchanges. The NYSE, for instance, saw its second lightest day of the year in terms of activity. Most market participants are in a waiting mode before deciding which side to join - bulls or bears. It is important to note, however, that all four key investor sentiment readings shifted towards the bear camp last week. Consensus Index, which measures Bullish Opinion, dropped especially sharply from 40% to 29%. But other sentiment readings (Investor Intelligence, AAII index, and Market VANE) still do not demonstrate enough fear to confirm market�s bottom. So while the market is deciding which way to go, here is 20 FREE Stock trading lessons to help fine turn your investing skills. +>+>+> 20 FREE STOCK TRADING LESSONS http://www.onlinetradingexpo.com/lessons.html +>+>+> PAYLESS SHOES - $2 off $10 http://www.paylessinfo.com/corporate/misc/general_offline_coupon.html HAVE A GREAT WEEK! Steven Schwartz - Editor & Staff From Jon.Beets at pacer.com Mon Aug 27 20:38:07 2001 From: Jon.Beets at pacer.com (Jon Beets) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:38:07 -0500 Subject: No More Secrecy Bills Message-ID: <013901c12f72$da7ce540$03d36b3f@pacer.com> Found this article on an Air Force web site... Jon Beets Pacer Communications http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/A54690-2001Aug23.html Washington Post August 24, 2001 Pg. 26 No More Secrecy Bills LAST YEAR President Clinton properly vetoed an intelligence authorization bill that would have criminalized virtually all leaks of classified information. Unfortunately, this year the idea has resurfaced and is due to be considered by the Senate intelligence committee in September. The leaks bill is still a bad idea and should again be rejected. We don't pretend to be neutral on this subject. Newspapers publish leaked material; our reporters solicit leaks. And some of the leaked material we publish is classified. But it is a mistake to imagine that all leaks of classified information are bad. Some expose wrongdoing or allow the public to debate relatively nonsensitive matters that government would prefer to handle without scrutiny. The government massively overclassifies information, so a law banning all leaks of supposedly sensitive material would inevitably criminalize conversations between officials and citizens about subjects that are not genuinely sensitive and chill in dangerous ways the ability of officials and former officials to speak out on important policy questions. Traditionally, the law has respected this fact and has made criminal only leaks of specific types of classified information -- the names of intelligence agents, for example, or material related to encoding systems used in intelligence work. Certain disclosures of defense information, if done with intent to harm national security, can be prosecuted under espionage laws. And no one is suggesting that every government employee should be free to decide what remains secret and what does not. Generally speaking, leaks are handled under administrative personnel rules; if you get caught, you can lose your job. One trouble with creating a blanket criminalization of classified leaks is that it gives the executive branch almost unchecked authority to remove information from public discussion. Classification rules are generally not made under statutes but by executive orders, meaning that the president would have the authority both to decide what information is classified and to prosecute people for leaking it. Such unchecked power would be dangerous even if overclassification weren't rampant. But there is hardly an area where government is more capricious than in its determination of what secrets it needs to keep. Several years ago, to cite one example, the Federation of American Scientists sought historical and contemporary data on the aggregate intelligence budget under the Freedom of Information Act. After some litigation, the government released the figure for fiscal year 1997 and then, voluntarily, for 1998. It has refused, however, to release data for subsequent years and claims that releasing the figures for the years 1947-1970 could compromise "the interest of national defense or foreign policy" and "intelligence sources and methods." There have been times when the disclosure of irrationally or unjustifiably classified information has served the public. Certainly, in a system that depends on an informed and skeptical electorate, the government should not be moving in the direction of criminalizing public debate. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4158 bytes Desc: not available URL: From luxefaire at earthlink.net Mon Aug 27 20:01:19 2001 From: luxefaire at earthlink.net (Bill Gallagher) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:01:19 -0400 Subject: NSA Elephant Herd Message-ID: From: ³The Messianic Legacy² by Lincoln Leigh Baigent Chapter 24 ³Secret Powers Behind Covert Groups² page 347 Subtitled ³Moves By The CIA² The man perhaps most responsible for initiating interest in United Europe Movements was Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, who had founded Pan-Europa in 1922 as The Pan European Union. Although it accomplished little on a practical level, Pan-Europa, in the period between the wars, was a prestigious organization. Its membership included a number of esteemed political figures, such as Leon Blum and Aristide Briand in France and Eduard Benes in Czechosolvakia, as well as Winston Churchill. The membership also included Albert Einstein, and such cultural luminaries as Paul Valery, Miguel de Unamuno, George Bernard Shaw and Thomas Mann. Driven out of Austria by the German Anschluss of 1938, Coudenhove-Kalergi, in 1940, fled to the United States. Here he lobbied tirelessly for his Pan-European ideal, insisting that European unity must be a priority for American Policy after the war. His efforts served to convince a number of important American political figures, such as William Bullitt and Senators Fullbright and Wheeler. When America entered the war, some of Coudenhove-Kalergi¹s thinking offered a blueprint for action. It was to be adopted as such by the OSS, precursor of the CIA. The OSS, or Office of Strategic Services, was created in emulation, and with the aid of, Britains MI6 and SOE. Its first director was General William (Wild Bill) Donovan. Donovans agents were to provide the nucleus for the post war CIA. One of them, Allen Dulles, became director of the CIA from 1953 until the Bay of Pigs debacle forced him to resign in 1961. During the war, Dulles had been based in Switzerland, and he maintained the contacts he had made there with Helmut James von Moltke and the Kreisau Circle. As director of the OSS, William Donovan was quick to realize the potential significance of the Vatican to intelligence operations. Thousands of Catholic priests were also serving as chaplains in the armed forces of every combatant nation. The network was already engaged in intelligence activity, passing vast qualtities of information back to the Vatican¹s own internal intelligences department. One of the four section leaders of Vatican Intelligence was Monsignor Giovanni Montini--later Pope Paul VI. Donovan therefore undertook to establish close links with the Vatican. Shortly after Americas entry into the war, Donovan forged an alliance with one Father Felix Morlion, founder of a European intelligence service called Pro Deo (For God), based in Lisbon. Under Donovan¹s auspices, Pro Deo moved its headquarters to New York, and the OSS undertook to finance its operation. When Rome was liberated in 1944, Donovan and Father Morlion proceeded to install Pro Deo in the Vatican itself. Here, it was particularly well situated to draw on information from Catholic priests who had been, or were still, in Germany or with German Armed Forces. The Jesuits, with their sophisticated training, rigorous discipline and tight knit organization, proved an especially valuable source of intelligence material. In the period following the war, the United States hastened to capitalize on the apparatus Donovan had established, particularly in Italy From aimee.farr at pobox.com Mon Aug 27 21:22:37 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:22:37 -0500 Subject: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108280315.f7S3FAf21092@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: > Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted. Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted. Trying to keep people out of trouble is a "provocateur?" Gee, sorry to dampen your conspiracy. I posted Regan because it was directly relevant to this discussion, and it makes a couple of points -- some of which run in your favor. Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in light of world events, I don't see how you could call ME a provocateur. My jibe was good-natured. You keep posting the equivalent of classified ads. I know who wants this shit now, and it's not "little bad men." > Not so bright, though. And you've outed yourself by not-so-subtle hints > about the SS "prime rib." I have not tried to sex the SS. This is not to say I don't pay attention to detail. > People like you deserve what you get. > > --Tim May My AP# is on file with your organization. ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Mon Aug 27 22:08:33 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:08:33 -0500 Subject: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108280315.f7S3FAf21092@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: > Not so bright, though. And you've outed yourself by not-so-subtle hints > about the SS "prime rib." When I said "prime rib," I meant PRIME RIB. Our little hamburger joint has taken on greater culinary responsibility. ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Mon Aug 27 22:15:00 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:15:00 -0500 Subject: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108280438.f7S4c4f21383@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: > You complained a few weeks ago about the timing of the "help me make > bombz" posts...as if we have any choice about when AOL-accounted narcs > post such requests. I don't think I complained about their timing, I think I complained about their very existence. > And now, bizarrely, you think the "timing" of a reference to Blacknet, > which was deployed in 1993, is "bad timing." Yep. ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Mon Aug 27 23:02:42 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:02:42 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827181615.023f0430@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: Reese wrote: > >This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) > > Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. > Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. > Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense, > at the least. > > Mechanisms to maintain privacy and anonymity are no different, use of Damn it, Reese, I didn't say that. Can anybody here read between the lines? Helloooo? *echo-echo-echo* > those same mechanisms to commit crime is not a death knell for those > mechanisms just as manufacturers do not stop producing and selling > vehicles that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, even though > some people do speed and are ticketed or given warnings, at least. > > You are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various > mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way > of the dodo. That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out secrets to Libya. > Tim may be correct, in his assessment on your deserving > what you receive. Oh, Noooooo!!!!! > >> think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > >> forbidden to. > > > >I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government. > > > >o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications. > > It also has legitimate applicability for Joe Sixpack and Suzy Winecooler, > who don't want a zillion ads and cookies clogging their bandwidth and > cache, who don't want targetted ads or their surfing habits tracked and > monitored, who certainly don't want their health insurance premiums to > go up after they do research on some rare, incurable disease they are > mildly curious about or after researching a more common ailment when a > friend happens to be diagnosed - to lean on those old standbys. No shit. > >o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like > >blinded biometrics. > > The maintenance of privacy can be a problem, from a marketers POV, other > things can be viewed as problems too, when the end consumer has proper > control of self-identifying information. If the money is good, that > level of authentication can be conducted in meatspace if it is truly > needed - most times, it is not. Again, I was speaking within the confines of a very limited application where authentication can be rather critical. > >o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing > >intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an > >intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor, > >or an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're > >left with the criminal element, IRA and so forth. > > You leave many possible things out, you present a false summation of all > the possible uses of Blacknet and maintenance of anonymity. As I stated, I was examining it in the context of an _intelligence application_. I wonder if that's a good contract, but obviously not....why do I even bother? *sigh* > >Most move product and still have > >distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are > >buying arms with offshore debit cards. > > This event by people acting criminally in another country (according to > the rules imposed by past-rulers of that other country, heh) should be > used to shape and mold US domestic policy and legislation for the care > and feeding of US citizen-units how, exactly? I was merely pointing out that people that crypto does not "beam" product. Solve the ship-submarine ditching problem if you want to help that scum. > >o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context. > > Bad timing? Who is disadvantaged by the timing of this discussion? > Your handler said to slow the conversation down while they run some > numbers and gets some surveillance in place, or something? They've caught on to our "slow-the-conversation" tactic!! Oh, whatever shall we do now? *slap to side of face* "Run some numbers?" What? I flag posts in here that might qualify for Title I interceptions. This month is looking to be a record-breaker. Excuse me, my "handlers" are calling.....Sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about this. > >This should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather > >than something subversive. > > Principle is like that. You don't like what others have to say? You > should remove your own right to freedom of speech, before you attempt > to censor others. (Good luck, once you've effectively removed your own > right to free speech, on censoring anyone else). Damnit, I'm not censoring anybody. I believe in the First Amendment. It's such a good source of intelligence and so often leads to probable cause. *kidding* > As a lawyer, you know or should know that most (if not all) of the most > significant constitutional rights cases to be heard by the courts have > involved criminals and other undesirables and unlikelies who pushed the > edge of the envelope in their own defense. Just because I have a dislike > for Charles Manson, does not mean I support movements to suspend all the > rights affirmed under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and other of the > various Amendments we collectively refer to as the Bill of Rights, for > example. *applause* > >It's like the fall of Knights Templar in > >here. What happened to the pilgrims' safe passage? > > When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it > probably isn't a pilgrim. Real ducks neither quack nor waddle, Reese. I'm going to go outside now, and talk to snails. ~Aimee From declan at well.com Mon Aug 27 22:06:59 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:06:59 -0400 Subject: nodes In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827060521.021d40e0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com >; from reeza@hawaii.rr.com on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:14:46AM -1000 References: <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com> <200108270427.f7R4RJf16530@slack.lne.com> <20010827082546.B5646@cluebot.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010827060521.021d40e0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Message-ID: <20010828010659.A346@cluebot.com> It was actually bounced messages, not spam, the was the problem. That's what he told me in private email, not on the list, my mistake. -Declan On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:14:46AM -1000, Reese wrote: > At 08:25 8/27/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:25:20PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > >> Lance has not posted a message to the Cypherpunks list in several > >> years, maybe more, that I can recall. > > > >Lance did post a message in the last month announcing that his cpunx > >node was going down. Too much bandwidth devoted to spam, he said. > >Other than that, I haven't seen him enter discussions in years, as you > >said. > > I do not recall the spam attribution, but I've delved and quote it below > for posterity. It was the fact that the cyberpass node lost its list of > screibers, then that it would go down for days at a time, that motivated > me to jump ship. Especially since there was no reply and no explanation > for any of the above occurrences. I figured Lance wanted to shut that > node down and move on to other things. > > Reese > > > > X-Sender: loki-mail at sirius.infonex.com > Message-Id: > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:51:22 -0700 > To: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net > From: "Lance M. Cottrell" > Old-Subject: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net closing > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > Subject: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net closing > Sender: owner-cypherpunks at minder.net > Precedence: bulk > Return-Path: bmm at waste.minder.net > > The cypherpunks at cyberpass.net node of the cypherpunks list will be > closing on Friday August 10. > > You should ensure that you are subscribed to a different node of the > cypherpunks list before that time. > > -Lance > > > Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell at anonymizer.com > Anonymizer, Inc. President > Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 > www.Anonymizer.com > > From declan at well.com Mon Aug 27 22:09:15 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:09:15 -0400 Subject: biochemwomdterror in dc In-Reply-To: <200108271627.f7RGROf18667@slack.lne.com>; from tcmay@got.net on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:25:07AM -0700 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010827083919.0215fd90@mail.well.com> <200108271627.f7RGROf18667@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010828010914.B346@cluebot.com> It's a little outside my beat, so I don't usually go. Maybe next time I'll go and post a summary or write a Wired article. --Declan On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 09:25:07AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > I've been seeing Declan forward a bunch of these terse paragraphs > announcing these meetings. I never see any summaries of what was said. > Anyone ever attend? (If they're closed to the public or journalists, why > forward so many announcements of them?) > > Or is this some stego channel I am missing? > > > --Puzzled in Corralitos From ahbadiner at igc.apc.org Tue Aug 28 02:51:17 2001 From: ahbadiner at igc.apc.org (Allan Hunt-Badiner) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 02:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Borders UK and privacy Message-ID: <200108280951.CAA14133@igc4.igc.apc.org> BORDERS U.K. USES FACE-RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY TO MONITOR CUSTOMERS Borders Books in the U.K. is employing SmartFace technology to compare the "unique digital face-maps" of customers against similar face-maps of known shoplifters. Privacy advocates such as the director of the Scottish Human Rights Centre are outraged by the development: "I can see why they don't want shoplifters in their store, but I would question whether this is proportionate to what they are trying to do. We are talking about having a bank of pictures of everyone going into the shop -- I would consider that a serious breach of privacy. There is no control over what they do with those pictures, or how they are kept -- are they safe? Nor is there much control over whether Borders could sell the information on, or whether people will actually know this is happening." (Sunday Herald 26 Aug 2001) http://www.sundayherald.com/18007 From 111 at sohu.com Mon Aug 27 13:43:01 2001 From: 111 at sohu.com (111 at sohu.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 04:43:01 +0800 Subject: =?GB2312?B?1+7Qwsir0MK158TUo6jLzbv1yc/DxaOp?= Message-ID: <200209272042.g8RKgXv04818@waste.minder.net> 亿华向你问好!我公司长期从事国际贸易,为挖掘市场潜力、扩大经营规模,意在贵地 寻找留易窗口,特将此价同表呈贵单位参考.我司提供一流品质,一流服务, 送货上门, 批另均可.欢迎各界朋友来电垂询及支持.多谢!!! 亿华贸易集团 TAIWAN: 台北市忠孝路1113#亿华商业大厦 中国IT贸易部 : 张金雄 TEL------0135-15049234 一.电脑配件(RMB.元): A:显示器 SONY CPD-G420:19"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:230MHz 2000 CPD-E230:17"\点距:0.25mm 1000 CPD-G220:17"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:203MHz 1400 CPD-G520:21"\点距:0.24mm\视频带宽:341MHz 3600 飞利浦 107P:17"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:203MHz 700 107E:17"\点距:0.27mm\视频带宽:108MHz 500 105S:15"\点距:0.28mm\视频带宽:79MHZ 350 201B:21"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:261MHz 2200 109B:19"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:234MHz 1200 109P:19"\点距:0.24mm\视频带宽:261MHz 1500 109S:19"\点距:0.27mm\视频带宽:203MHz 900 201P:21"\点距:0.24mm\视频带宽:320MHz 3200 105E:15"\点距:0.28mm\视频带宽:65MHz 300 107B3:17"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:176MHz 620 107G:17"\点距:0.24mm\视频带宽:108MHz 550 107T:17"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:108MHz 560 三星 551S/15"\点距:0.24mm\视频带宽:65MHz 300 753DF:17"\点距:0.20mm\视频带宽:110MHz 450 753S/17"\点距:0.23mm\视频带宽:110MHz 480 1100P/21"\点距:0.22mm\视频带宽:230MHz 2300 755DF/17"\点距:0.20mm\视频带宽:135MHz 560 743DF/ 17"\点距:0.20mm\视频带宽:110MHz 440 753DFX/17"\点距:0.20mm\视频带宽:110MHz 510 755DFX/17"\点距:0.20mm\视频带宽:185MHz 520 757DFX/17"\点距:0.20mm\视频带宽:250MHz 780 1200NF:22"\点距:0.24mm\视频带宽:340MHz 3000 550S/15"\点距:0.24mm\视频带宽:80MHz 360 955DF:19"\点距:0.20mm\视频带宽:185MHz 1000 750S/17"\点距:0.24mm\视频带宽:110MHz 540 EMC DX787:17"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:150MHz 510 PF797:17"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:202.5MHz 560 DX997N:19"\点距:0.25mm\视频带宽:202.5MHz 900 PX558/15"\点距:0.28mm 300 FX772N/17"\点距:0.27mm\视频带宽:120MHz 500 DZ777NS:17"\点距:0.20mm\视频带宽:110MHz 500 LT541/15"\液晶板点距:0.297mm 600 HG562/15"\液晶板点距:0.297mm 690 BM468/14.1"\液晶板点距:0.279mm\亮度:180cd/m2\对比度:200:1 500 568 II/15"\液晶板点距:0.279mm\亮度:200cd/m2\对比度:400:1 730 BM568/15"\液晶板点距:0.3mm\亮度:200cd/m2\对比度:350:1 1500 三星 151S/15"\液晶板点距:0.297mm\亮度:250cd/m2\对比度:330:1 780 171S/17"\液晶板点距:0.264mm\亮度:250cd/m2\对比度:350:1 1820 151MP/15"\液晶板点距:0.297mm\亮度:250cd/m2\对比度:330:1 1600 171MP/17"\液晶板点距:0.264mm\亮度:240cd/m2\对比度:400:1 2500 210T/21.3"\液晶板点距:0.270mm\亮度:230cd/m2\对比度:400:1 12000 151BM/15"\液晶板点距:0.297mm\亮度:250cd/m2\对比度:330:1 900 240T/ 24.06"\液晶板点距:0.270mm\亮度:230cd/m2\对比度:500:1 19000 151B/15"\液晶板点距:0.297mm\亮度:250cd/m2\对比度:330:1 1000 SONY SMD-M51/15.1"\液晶板点距:0.3mm\亮度:200 cd/m2\对比度:300:1 980 SMD-M81/18.1"\液晶板点距:0.3mm\亮度:200 cd/m2\对比度:300:1 3200 SDM-N50/15"\液晶板点距:0.297mm\亮度:200cd/m2\对比度:300:1 3000 B:CPU P4 1.7G（Socket 478/盒）500 1.6G（Socket 478/散） 500 1.6G（Socket 478/盒） 510 1.5G（Socket 478/散） 450 1.7G（Socket 478/散） 490 1.5G（Socket 478/盒） 480 1.8GA（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/盒） 550 2.0GA（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/盒） 600 1.8G（Socket 478/散）590 1.6GA（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/散） 510 1.8GA（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/散） 580 2.0GA（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/散） 620 1.6G（Socket 423/散） 500 1.8G（Socket 478/盒） 620 1.6GA（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/盒） 540 2.0G（Socket 478/盒）700 1.5G（Socket 423/盒） 430 1.5G（Socket 423/散） 460 1.7G（Socket 423/散）535 2.2GA（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/盒） 1000 1.7G（Socket 423/盒）480 1.6G（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/盒）550 2.2GA（Socket 478/NORTHWOOD/散）900 1.6G（Socket 423/盒）660 1.9G（Socket 478/盒）700 Celeron 1.0G（散）230 P III 1.0G（散）420 Celeron 866（散）390 Celeron 1.0G（256K/散）220 Celeron 1.7G（Willamette/散）330 P III 733（散）310 Celeron 900（散）170 P III 866（盒）400 PIII 933EB（散）400 P III 800EB（散）380 Celeron 1.2G（散）250 P III 850E（散）400 Celeron 1.2G（TUALATIN/散）230 Celeron 1.3G（TUALATIN/散）250 Celeron 1.1G（散）220 P III 1.0G（盒）450 Celeron 1.1G（TUALATIN/散）200 Celeron 733（散）120 P III XEON 700（服务器专用/1MB）7000 PIII XEON 700（服务器专用/2MB）10000 Celeron 850（散）160 Celeron 533（Socket 370/散）100 Celeron 800（散）150 Celeron 566（散）120 Celeron 633（散）130 Celeron 950（散）168 Celeron 766（散）150 P III 800EB（盒）3700 P III 700E（散）330 P III 933EB（盒）450 P III 1.0G（服务器专用）2200 P III 667（散）310 XEON 700（COMPAQ服务器专用/1MB）7800 XEON 933（COMPAQ服务器专用）3800 XEON 1.0GB（COMPAQ服务器专用）6500 600（COMPAQ服务器专用）2000 667（COMPAQ服务器专用） 2000 866（COMPAQ服务器专用） 2400 800（COMPAQ服务器专用） 4500 Celeron 600（散） 135 667（散）135 1.7G（Willamette/盒）340 Celeron 1.2G（盒）240 Celeron 700（散）150 AMD AthlonXP 1600+（散）270 AthlonXP 1700+（散）310 AthlonXP 1800+（散）370 AthlonXP 1500+（散）250 Duron 850（散）100 Duron 900（散）110 Duron 1.0G（散）140 AthlonXP 1900+（散）480 Athlon ThunderBird 1.33G（266外频/散）200 Duron 950（散）130 AthlonXP 2000+（散）560 Athlon ThunderBird 900（散）120 Athlon ThunderBird 1.0G（200外频/散）190 Athlon ThunderBird 1.1G（200外频/散）180 Athlon ThunderBird 1.2G（266外频/散）220 Athlon ThunderBird 1.0G（266外频/散）200 Duron 700（散）100 Athlon ThunderBird 950（散）210 Athlon ThunderBird 1.4G（266外频/散）400 C:硬盘 Maxtor 40GB（ Plus 60/散）7200转 230 40.9GB（ VL40/散）5400转 200 160GB（ D540X/散）5400转 700 120GB（D540X/散）5400转 450 20GB（ Plus 60/散） 7200转 190 30GB（ Plus 60/散）7200转 220 81.9GB（ 80/散）5400转 330 20GB（ Plus D740X/散）7200转 220 40GB（ Plus D740X/散）7200转 230 20GB（ 541DX/散）5400转 210 60GB（ D540X/散）5400转 270 20GB（ 541DX/盒）5400转 200 60GB（ Plus D740X/散）7200转 300 80GB（ Plus D740X/散）7200转 400 40GB（ D540X/散）5400转 200 20.4GB（ VL40/散）5400转 190 40GB（ Plus D740X/盒）7200转 260 60GB（Plus D740X/盒）7200转 310 80GB（ Plus D740X/盒）7200转 460 40GB（ D540X/盒）5400转 250 80GB（ D540X/盒）5400转 390 20GB（ Plus D740X/盒）7200转 210 40GB（ 536DX/盒）5400转 250 80GB（ 536DX/盒）5400转 390 60GB（ Plus 60/盒）7200转 350 120GB（D540X/盒）5400转 540 81.9GB（ 80/盒）5400转 380 60GB（ 536DX/盒）5400转 320 100GB（ 536DX/盒）5400转 1000 60GB（ D540X/盒）5400转 380 160GB（ D540X/盒）5400转 1100 30.7GB（ VL40/散）5400 转 300 61.4GB（ 80/散）5400转 370 40GB（ 536DX/散）5400转 230 15GB（531DX/散）5400转 200 20GB（Plus 60/盒）7200转 210 希捷 40.8GB（U Series 6）5400转 200 40GB（Barracuda ATA IV）7200转 220 60GB（Barracuda ATA IV）7200转 280 20.4GB（U Series 6）5400转 200 80GB（Barracuda ATA IV）7200转 350 20GB（Barracuda ATA IV）7200转 200 30GB（Barracuda ATA III）7200转 220 20GB（U Series 5）5400转 170 40GB（U Series 5）5400转 210 20GB（Barracuda ATA III）7200转 210 40GB（Barracuda ATA III）7200转 220 10.2GB（Barracuda ATA III）7200转 180 10GB（U Series 5）5400转 120 15.3GB（Barracuda ATA III）7200转 220 30GB（U Series 5）5400转 270 15.3GB（U Series 5）5400转 240 ST39236/LW 10000转 450 ST39236/LCV 7200转 500 IBM 60GB（Deskstar 60GXP）7200转 250 10GB（Travelstar 20GN）4200转 190 40GB（Deskstar 60GXP）7200转 220 40GB（Deskstar 120GXP）7200转 220 80GB（Deskstar 120GXP）7200转 310 18.3GB（Ultrastar 36LZX/68） 服务器硬盘\转速:10000转\缓存:4MB 580 18.3GB（Ultrastar 36LZX/80） 服务器硬盘\转速:10000转\缓存:4MB 180 36.9GB（Ultrastar 36LZX/80） 服务器硬盘\转速:10000转\缓存:4MB 900 36.9GB（Ultrastar 36LZX/68） 服务器硬盘\转速:10000转\缓存:4MB$~900 40GB（Deskstar 40GV）5400转 220 20GB（Deskstar 60GXP）7200转 260 20GB（Deskstar 40GV）5400转 200 30GB（Deskstar 75GXP）7200转 310 75GB（Deskstar 75GXP）7200转 820 15GB（Travelstar 20GN） 笔记本硬盘\转速:4200转\缓存:512KB 250 D:主板: 微星 845Pro2-LE(Socket,i845,SDRAM,AC97声卡) 500 845Pro (Socket,i845,SDRAM,AC97声卡) 530 850Pro5 (Socket,i850,8738声卡) 700 645UITRA (Socket478,SiS645芯片 3DDR AC97) 440 K7T266Pro (SocketA,KT266,3DDR,AC97) 420 K7T266Pro2-LE(SocketA,AC97,ATA100) 380 K7t266Pro2(SocketA,支持XP,3DDR,AC97) 410 815EPT Pro-NL(Socket370,i815EP,支持新PIII,AC97,ATA100) 360 815EP Pro-R (Socket370,i850EP,IDE RAID) 370 815EP-NL (Socket370,i815EP,AC97) 330 815ET Pro (Socket370,i815E,新PIII,i752,AC97) 450 694D Pro2-IR (Socket370,VIA694X/686B,RAID) 410 6309NL100 (Socket370,VIA694X/686B,AC97) 200 6309NL/-A (Socket370,VIA694X/686B,AC97,创新5880 230 美达 KT133B (SocketA,KT133/686B,ATA100,AC97) 200 6VA694XB (Socket370,VIA694x/686B,AC97,ATA100) 180 昂达 VP266+128M DDR 400 VP266 (Socket370,VIA/APOLLO/PRO266/AC97) 280 VK266 (SocketA,KT133A/686B/AC97/ATA100) 250 VT-133PLUS(SocketA,KT133/686B/AC97/ATA100) 250 ID815E (Socket370,i815E/i752/AC97/ATA100) 255 ID815EP (Socket370,i815EP/AC97/ATA100) 260 ID810 (Socket370,i810/ATA66/i752显卡/AC97声卡) 190 VP4-133PLUS(Socket370,VIA694x/686B/AC97/ATA100) 210 Vp4-133/M (Socket370,VIA694/596B/CMI8738声卡/ATA66) 180 VP-133 (Socket370,VIA693A/596B/CMI8738声卡/ATA66) 200 SIS730S (SocketA,SiS300/AC97/10/100M网卡) 205 SIS630E (Socket370,SIS630E/SiS300显卡/AC97) 225 E:内存IBM 128MB/ 256MB（PC-133/144Pin）90/150 256MB（PC-133/E/33L3322）1000 512MB（PC-133/E/33L3324）500 128MB（PC-133/E/33L3113）500 512MB（PC-133/E/33L3117）2800 128MB/ 256MB/512MB（PC-133/E）120/240/560 128MB（PC-133/E/33L3320）520 512MB（PC-133/E/33L3146）3000 256MB（PC-133/E/20L0247）1300 512MB（PC-133/E/20L0249）2680 Kinghorse 128MB/256MB（PC-133/144Pin）75/190 128MB（PC-133/SDRAM）70 128MB（PC-100/144Pin）70 512MB（PC-133/144Pin）1100 64MB（PC-133/144Pin）58 128MB/256MB（PC-133/E-R）150/300 512MB/1GB（PC-133/E-R）920/2500 256MB/512MB（PC-266/DDR SDRAM）200/500 256MB/512MB（PC-266/DDR SDRAM/E）260/680 128MB/256MB（PC-800/RDRAM）220/400 256MB512MB（PC-800/RDRAM/E）520/2000 64MB/256MB（PC-133/SDRAM）80/180 64MB（PC-100/144Pin）90 KINGMAX 256MB/128MB（PC-150/SDRAM）160/85 128MB（PC-133/SDRAM）70 256MB（PC-333/DDR）140 128MB（PC-100/144Pin）100 256MB（PC-2100/DDR）170 256MB（PC-133/SDRAM）162 256MB（PC-133/144Pin）300 KINGSTON 128MB/256MB（PC-133/SDRAM）80/110 256MB（PC-2100/DDR）105 128MB（PC-133/144Pin）96 512MB（PC-2100/DDR SDRAM）390 512MB（PC-133/SDRAM）410 128MB（PC-2100/DDR）78 128MB（PC-100/144Pin）100 128MB/256MB（PC-800/RDRAM）148/320 256MB（PC-100/144Pin）300 256MB（PC-133/E-R）310 256MB/512MB（PC-2100/DDR SDRAM/E-R）290/680 512MB（PC-133/E-R）700 三星 128MB/256MB（PC-800/RDRAM）180/320 128MB/256MB（PC-133/SDRAM）60/170 64MB/128MB/256MB（PC-133/E）50/110/230 64MB（PC-133/SDRAM）48 64MB128MB/256MB（PC-133/E-R）68/175/298 现代(HY) 64MB/128MB/256MB（PC-133/SDRAM）62/95/30 64MB/128MB（PC-100/144Pin）33/68 128MB/256MB（PC-266/DDR SDRAM）66/105 256MB（PC-133/144Pin）168 64MB（PC-100/SDRAM）35 F:光驱 BenQ 明基 650A/652P/656A--120/150/162元 微星 52X/16X DVD--150/220元 Aopen 50X/52X--130/140元 先锋 116/106S/美达12X DVD--270/350/200元 台电12X DVD/16X DVD /冠军版--180/230/220元 G:显卡 太阳花幻影8800/S8000PRO--480/420元 太阳花幻影 S8000/S6000---350/300元 微星 8808/8817--210/350元 华硕AGP-7100Magic/AGP-V7700T1--200/430元 小影霸小妖G9700/速配7700/7000--450/400/360元 七彩虹 镭风VE DDR/VE SDR--280/210元 艾尔莎 影雷者 GTS PRO--400元 艾尔莎 影雷者 311/32M--220元 丽台 WinFast GeForce 256--370元 盈通剑龙G3000/G9000--200/450元 H: 声卡( 原厂彩盒包装，包换三月，保修一年 ) CMI 8738 PCI 四声道 20 ESS 1989 PCI 四声道 17 MODEN 卡( 原厂彩盒包装，包换三月，保修一年 ) AG 5628 56K AG 5628 56K 40 ESS 2838 56K ESS 2838 56K 35 二:笔记本电脑(联保三年) A . IBM R30--32C(6000元) PIII1GB/128M/15GB/13.3"TFT/24XCD/56K+10/100M/WIN98 R30--62C(6100元) PIII1GB/128M/30GB/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K+10/100M/WIN98 R30-3BC(8100元) PIII1GB/128M/30GB/15.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K+10/100M/全内置 R30--4BC(9000元) PIII1.13GB/128M/30GB/15.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K+10/100M/全内置 R30--4CC(8600元) PIII1.13GB/128M/30GB/15.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K/全内置/无线网卡 R30--64C(9000元) PIII1.2GB/128M/48GB/15.1"TFT/DVD+CDRW/56K+10/100M/全内置 A22P-URC(8600元) PIII1GB/128M/32GB/15.1"TFT/CDRW/56K/全内置 T23- 2TC(6500元) PIII1GB/128M/20GB/14.1"TFT/DVD/56K+10/100M T23- 4NC(8600元) PIII1.13GB/128M/30GB/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K+10/100M/光软互换 薄/WIN2000/无线网卡 T23- 5DC(8500元) PIII1.2GB/128M/48GB/14..1"TFT/8XDVD/56K+10/100M/W2000 T23- 5FC(9000元) PIII1.2GB/128M/48GB/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K/W2000/无线网卡 T23- 6UC(9200元) PIII1GB/128M/20GB/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K+10/100M/XP T23- 4MC(9100元) PIII1.13GB/128M/30GB/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K+10/100M T23- 9TC(9200元) PIII1.2GB/256M/60GB/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K/无线网卡/XP X22- QJC(8300元) PIII800/128M/20GB/12.1"TFT/DVD+底座/56K+10/100M/无线网卡 X22- QHC(7600元) PIII800/128M/20GB/12.1"TFT/DVD+底座/56K+10/100M B . 索尼 SONY SR/27K(4500元) PIII750/128M/30GB/10.4“TFT/CDROM/56K/NO FDD SR/X77(5500元) PIII800/128M/20GB/10.4“TFT/蓝牙就绪/CDROM/56K/NO FDD R-505JE(5200元) PIII850/128M/20GB/12.1"TFT/56K+10/100M/DVD底座 R-505JS (6200元) PIII850/256M/30GB/12.1"TFT/56K+10/100M/DVD+CDRW底座 GR370(5800元) PIII1.13GB/256M/30GB/15.1"TFT/CDRW+DVD/56K+10/100M/全内置 GR390(6000元) PIII1.2GB/512M/30GB/15.1"TFT/CDRW+DVD/56K+10/100M/全内置 FX340(4800元) PIII900/128M/15GB/14.1"TFT/CDRW+DVD/56K+10/100M/全内置 C1MR-BP(5000元) Crouse667/128M/20GB/8.9TFT/56K/内置摄相头/CD+FDD C.富士通 FUJITSU C6651 PIII1.13G/256M/20G/8XDVD/14.1"TFT/56K/100M/TV-OUT/支持蓝牙/3K￥6200 P1030 Cruse700/128M/20G/8.9"tft/56K/100M/0.88Kg￥4180 C7631 PIII1.13G/256M/30G/8XDVD/15.1"TFT/56K/100M/TV-OUT/支持蓝牙/3K￥6800 D. 东芝 TOSHIBA 3440CT PIII500/64M/6G/11.3"XGA/100M/8M显存/FDD￥5800 　 3490CT PIII 700/128M/20G/11.3"XGA/56K/100M/FDD￥7800 　 3480CT PIII 600/64M/12G/11.3XGA/56K/100M/FDD￥5000 　 　 4000DVD PIII 750/128M/20G/12.1"XGA/56K/100M/8XDVD/蓝牙￥6800 　 2000 PIII750/256M/20G/12.1”TFT/56K/100M/无光软驱/1.18Kg￥12000 　 　 S31CDT PIII700/128M/20G/24XCD/12.1"TFT/56K/100M/1394￥8500 　　 S31DVD PIII700/128M/20G/12.1"XGA/8XDVD/56K/100M/1394￥6000 　 　 1800CTD C800/64M/15G/13.1"TFT/24XCD/56K/100M/1394￥9988 1800XDVD C1100/256M/20G/14.1”TFT/8XDVDCDRW/56K/100M/全内置￥4500 　 　 1800XDVD C1066/256M/15G/14”TFT/8XDVD/56K/光软互换￥4000 　　 1810XCDT PIII 1G/128M/20G/13.3''''TFT/24XCD/56K/100M￥7000 　 　 1800XCDT PIII 1G/128M/20G/13.3''TFT/CDRW/56K/100M￥6000 　 　 1810XDVD PIII 1G/256M/20G/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K/100M￥7000 　 　 1810XDVD PIII 1G/128M/20G/14.1"TFT/8XDVDRW/56K/100M￥8000 　 　 1810XDVD PIII 1.1G/128M/20G/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K/100M￥6800 　 　 2800XDVD PIII 800/128M/20G/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/56K/100M/8M显存￥5800 　 　 2800ZDVD PIII 900/128M/30G/15"TFT/DVD CDRW/56K/100M/ GFII 16M￥10000 　 　 3000XDVD PIII 850/128M/20G/DVD CDRW/14.1"TFT/56K/100M/1394/GFII 16M ￥7600 　 3000XDVD PIII 1G/128M/20G/8XDVD/14.1"TFT/56K/100M/1394/GFII 16M￥8600 　 　 　 4600xDVD PIII 850/128M/20G/DVD/14.1"TFT/56K/100M/16M 显存/预留蓝牙￥9000 　 4600 PIII 800/64M/15G/24XCD/13.3"TFG/56K/100M/16M 显存/预留蓝牙￥6600 　 　 4600ZDVD PIII 900/128M/30G/DVD/14.1"TFT/56K/100M/16M 显存/预留蓝牙￥9600 　 　 4600ZDVD PIII 800/128M/20G/8XDVD/15"TFT/56K/100M/16M 显存/预留蓝牙￥8800 　　 6000XDVD PIII1G/128M/20G/8XDVD/14.1”TFT/56K/100M /16M 显存/无软驱￥7400 　　 6000ZDVD PIII1.33G/256M/30G/8XDVD3/15”TFT/56K/100M /16M 显存/无软驱￥10000 　 2000 PIII1G/256M/20G/8XDVD/14.1”TFT/56K/100M/软驱外挂￥9000 　 8200J PIII 900/256M/20G/14.1"TFT/8XDVD/16M 显存/蓝牙￥10800 　 　 8200L PIII 1G/256M/20G/SXGA 14.1"TFT/CDRW+DVD/16MB显存/蓝牙￥10000 　 　 9000 PIII 1G/256M/20G/8XDVD/14.1"TFT/56K/100M￥11800 E.康柏 COMPAQ 1714SC(6200元) PIII1.06GB/256M/30GB/14.1"TFT/DVD/56K+10/100M/1394/XP/超薄互换 　 1715SC(7600元) PIII1.06GB/256M/30GB/14.1"TFT/DVD+CDRW/56K+10/100M/1394/XP/超薄互换 　 2700SC(8600元) PIII1.13GB/256M/30GB/15.1"TFT/DVD+CDRW/56K+10/100M/16M/XP/全内置 　 N400c(6300元) PIII850/128M/20GB/12.1"TFT/56K+10/100M/超轻超薄 　 E500(4300元) PIII900/128M/20GB/14.1"TFT/24XCD/56K+10/100M/全内置 　 E500(6000元) PIII1GB/128M/30GB/15.1"TFT/8DVD/56K+10/100M/全内置 　 三：数码照相机 佳能（CANON) Digital Ixus 1600×1200/211万像素 ￥1780 EOS D30 1600×1200/325万像素 ￥11000 Power Shot S10 1600×1200/211万像素 ￥1900 PowerShot G1 2048×1536/334万像素 ￥3100 PowerShot Pro70 1280×1024/168万像素 ￥4400 PowerShot S100 1600×1200/211万像素 ￥1880 PowerShot S20 1600×1200/334万像素 ￥2800 DIGITAL IXUS 300 CCD像素2110000/分辨率1688/光学变焦倍数3 ￥2000 柯达（KODAK) DC215 100万像素/1152*864/8MB/2倍光学 ￥1080 DC240 130万像素/1280*960/8MB/2倍光学/3倍数码 ￥1800 DC280变焦数码相机 1760 x 1168 像素/30 至 60 毫米等效焦距 ￥2380 DC290 230万像素/2240*1500/16MB/3倍光学/2倍数码 ￥3000 DC3400 1760×1168/230万像素 ￥2000 DC3800 1792×1200/210万像素 ￥1900 DC4800 柯达数码相机/330万像素/2160*1400/16MB/3倍光学/2倍数码 ￥2800 DX3600 220万像素，2倍光学，3倍数码，内置8M CF ￥1250 mc3 数码相机 数码静态相机,24位色 ￥1100 DC290 CCD像素2304012/分辨率2204/光学变焦倍数3 ￥2500 DX3500 220万像素，3倍数码变焦,内置8MCF ￥1000 理光（RICOH） RDC-7 334万像素CCD/3倍光学变焦/3.2倍数码变焦 ￥3100 RDC 4200 CCD像素1320000/分辨率1280/光学变焦倍数3 ￥3000 RDC 5300 CCD像素2300000/分辨率1792/光学变焦倍数3 ￥3400 索尼（SONY） DSC-F505V CCD像素3340000/分辨率2240/光学变焦倍数5 ￥3300 DSC-F55V CCD像素3300000/分辨率2240 ￥2900 DSC-F707 CCD像素5240000/分辨率2560/光学变焦倍数5 ￥3500 DSC-P1 CCD像素3340000/分辨率2048/光学变焦倍数3 ￥2600 DSC-P20 CCD像素1300000/分辨率1216 ￥800 DSC-P3 CCD像素3338000/分辨率1280 ￥1800 DSC-P30 CCD像素1300000/分辨率1280/光学变焦倍数3 ￥900 DSC-P5 CCD像素3338000/分辨率2048/光学变焦倍数3 ￥2000 DSC-P50 CCD像素2100000/分辨率1600/光学变焦倍数3 ￥1150 DSC-S70 CCD像素3340000/分辨率2048/光学变焦倍数3 ￥2300 MVC-CD1000 CCD像素2110000/分辨率1600/光学变焦倍数10 ￥6500 MVC-CD200 CCD像素2100000/分辨率1600/光学变焦倍数3 ￥2500 MVC-CD300 CCD像素3340000/分辨率2048 ￥3100 MVC-FD95 CCD像素2110000/分辨率1280/光学变焦倍数10 ￥4000 四：数码摄像机(全球联保单) SONY DSR-PD150P/DCR-PC115E/TRV-330E/TRV-130E 12000元 /5000 元 / 2800 元 /2200元 PANASONIC DVC15---6000元/VZ10---1800元 JVC DR-DV2000---5800元/GR-DVL9300---3000元 SAMSUNG VP-D60---2300元/VP-M50---1300元 SHARP VL-PD6E---5000元 CANON DM-XLIS---13000元/MV400i---3000元 五:移动电话(RMB):(全国联保) 诺基亚:8850/8250/8310/8210/8855 1100/700/1500/500/1600元 摩托罗拉:V60/V66/V70/388 1400/800/1000/600/600/1500/1600元 三星:SGH-A400/A288/N288/T108 1400/1000/700/1700元 西门子:6688--1500 欢迎来电垂询！013515049234 请勿回邮件！！！！！ From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 28 05:13:33 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:13:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <929ebe296fd59116e69e973df3e02999@dizum.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote: > The point is that those who will pay large sums to acquire access to > these technologies, even for the purpose of overthrowing an evil regime, > are not doing it out of altruism. They're not good-guy libertarians > who only want to set up a John Galt state. Realistically they're more > likely to be interested in taking over the reins of power themselves. > > And it's pretty questionable to salve your conscience by saying that > even if these guys use the tools to bad ends, someone else will then > be able to use the same tools against them. The problem is, we're > doing this for profit, right? We won't give the tools away once > the first generation uses them to take over. We should sell them to > the highest bidder. (Better to think of a service than a tool here. > Most cypherpunk technologies require a distributed infrastructure that > you can charge for.) The high bidders are once again going to be the > bad guys who want to take over for selfish reasons. Jeesus that's naive. What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By participating you may in fact be signing your own death warrant. The highest bidders are going to be the ones with the most money at the tiem of the auction. Whether they gained that money by selfish/altruistic or good/bad reasons is relativistic. Further, to assume that the profits go to the 'bad guys w/ selfish reasons' a priori is just begging the question. Or is your thesis that the optimal market strategy is to be a 'bad guy w/ selfish reasons'? If so, you need to review that Galtian utopia. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From carolyne568 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 07:34:09 2001 From: carolyne568 at yahoo.com (carolyne568 at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: IMPORTANT NOTICE Message-ID: <200108281434.HAA15789@toad.com> FREE System Recruits Like Crazy! A Simple, Yet Powerful Marketing System That Produces Maximum Results Very Quickly! Without Having To Recruit or Talk With Anyone! WE DO THE HARD PARTS... - We mail the information packages! - We take all incoming calls! - We give the presentation for YOU! - We answer the questions! - We handle any follow-ups! - We enroll your prospects for you! - WE SUPPLY YOU WITH: - Marketing tools! - a Personalized Self-Replicating Website! - a Powerful 24-hour presentation line! - a 24-hour Fax-On-Demand! - a Professional mail fulfillment center! - We eliminate your long distance bills trying to recruit! YOU KEEP THE CHECK! Take a Free Test Drive and get 2 HOT e-Books! mailto:clari277 at yahoo.com?subject=MORE_INFO { PS: We even give you FREE LEADS every month! } ===>>> Supercharge your MLM *FREE* - Report reveals it all. We deliver you a generic, proven SYSTEM to have them building your opportunity with the speed of lightning! Act now! mailto:bryna481 at yahoo.com?subject=FREE_REPORT ======================================================= REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: You may automatically remove yourself from any future mailings by clicking here. mailto:carolyne568 at yahoo.com?subject=Remove_Me From honig at sprynet.com Tue Aug 28 07:35:39 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:35:39 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827181615.023f0430@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010828073539.00853c50@pop.sprynet.com> At 01:02 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: >That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. >However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn >sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out >secrets to Libya. The point is, if its not *good enough* for taboo activity, its not good enough for everyday uses. And of course, tools are neutral; the knife OJ dressed his ex with was not an 'evil' piece of metal. Neither are guns. As metalsmiths, we might regret how we make it easier to slice members of our species, much as as technologists we might regret that nets+crypto makes some copyright unenforcable, or how networked boxes have an unintended side-effect of lessening privacy. As the first metalsmiths might have observed, no matter the pros and cons of this development, its out there, its possible, folks will be competing to refine it, so get used to it. You can always write a tome afterwards like Albert Hoffman's "My Problem Child" if you need to explain later. That being said, if you object to dark 'marketing' on a personal level, well, sure, but that's merely your personal taste. From bob at black.org Tue Aug 28 07:39:12 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:39:12 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <3B8BAD0E.2EAEC970@black.org> At 08:20 AM 8/28/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: >Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled >country. LOL. To some of us, the UK *is* a communist-controlled country, however this is completely irrelevent to the IRA/UK spat. From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 28 08:04:02 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:04:02 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <929ebe296fd59116e69e973df3e02999@dizum.com> Message-ID: <200108281506.f7SF6Df23635@slack.lne.com> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 11:20 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote: >> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: >>> "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money >>> do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to >>> spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys >>> aren't >>> rolling in dough. >> >> The IRA and the Real IRA have a lot of money, as the Brits have been >> complaining about recently. Osama bin Laden is said to control more >> than >> a billion dollars. And so on. I disagree with you assertion that "these >> guys aren't rolling in dough." > > Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled > country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting > to get the Russians out of Afghanistan but that was a long time ago. > Now he's opposing American influence in Saudi Arabia. Your reading comprehension sucks. I gave half a dozen _examples_, one of them "freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes" and you assume this is the only kind of freedom fighter being talked about. No point in carrying on a conversation with this breathtaking display of literalism. --Tim May From nobody at dizum.com Mon Aug 27 23:20:12 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:20:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <929ebe296fd59116e69e973df3e02999@dizum.com> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote: > On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money > > do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to > > spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys aren't > > rolling in dough. > > The IRA and the Real IRA have a lot of money, as the Brits have been > complaining about recently. Osama bin Laden is said to control more than > a billion dollars. And so on. I disagree with you assertion that "these > guys aren't rolling in dough." Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting to get the Russians out of Afghanistan but that was a long time ago. Now he's opposing American influence in Saudi Arabia. Some developers may nevertheless sympathize politically with such these groups and so could work on technology for them with a clear conscience. > > "Revolutionaries overthrowing bad governments." The main > > revolutionaries > > who will be willing to pay money are those who expect to get rich from > > their revolution. These are the ones who want to throw out the tyrants > > so they can set themselves up as new tyrants. It is people like this > > who would be the best customers of cypherpunk technology. You're not > > making the world a better place by giving them tools. > > You make the assumption that overthrowing, say, the PRC or USSR > governments, would result in a "worse or just as bad" regime. I > disagree. And the same tools are still available to deconstruct interim > replacement regimes. The point is that those who will pay large sums to acquire access to these technologies, even for the purpose of overthrowing an evil regime, are not doing it out of altruism. They're not good-guy libertarians who only want to set up a John Galt state. Realistically they're more likely to be interested in taking over the reins of power themselves. And it's pretty questionable to salve your conscience by saying that even if these guys use the tools to bad ends, someone else will then be able to use the same tools against them. The problem is, we're doing this for profit, right? We won't give the tools away once the first generation uses them to take over. We should sell them to the highest bidder. (Better to think of a service than a tool here. Most cypherpunk technologies require a distributed infrastructure that you can charge for.) The high bidders are once again going to be the bad guys who want to take over for selfish reasons. > > "Distribution of birth control information in Islamic countries." > > Again, > > selling to Planned Parenthood is not a business plan which will make > > anyone rich. > > Planned Parenthood is not envisaged as the user.... Pray tell, who exactly will pay large sums to be able to distribute birth control information in Islamic countries? > > The conclusion is that you need to add a third axis to Tim's graph: > > morality, in addition to value and cost. Many of the most lucrative > > potential uses of anonymity technologies are morally questionable. > > If you add this additional filter you are forced to focus on just a > > few application areas (with the additional complication that few people > > will agree on morality, and that morality and legality often have little > > overlap). > > The technology is agnostic to "morality." This is trivial; the same can be said for any technology. It is the users and implementors who are moral actors, and that is who we are considering. > Choate argues that at least 5 or 6 axes are needed. Ever the nitwit, he > fails to realize that the main debate doesn't even use the _two_ that I > have outlined. Yes, I know about phase spaces and multi-dimensional > diagrams. But given that the debate about privacy tools is mired at the > 1D level ("untracebility good, traceability bad...why don't the proles > see this?"), graphing the major users and suppliers on the 2D graph I > outlined is a step in the right direction. It goes a long way to > explaining why people will spend thousands to fly to the Caymans to set > up a bank account while others won't even bother using PGP. Fine, if the only point you want to make is that costs must be considered. But eventually we need to move beyond that simplistic analysis. At that point we do need to consider morality and other issues. > You want to add "morality" to the chart. Fine, except I don't see how it > gives different answers than my chart gave. The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask. If your questions are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer them. If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world) then you need a better chart. From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Tue Aug 28 11:57:14 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:57:14 -1000 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010828083821.02158530@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> Responding to Gil Hamilton, Aimee Farr wrote: >So, now, it's... > >"BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and >Selling Corporate and National Secrets.... to foreign adversaries, and to >spur the collapse of governments." > >Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like that? >Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would >contribute to such a project? "Corvette: Only seats two, capable of exceeding the once national speed limit of 55 mph by a factor of three or more, has no trunk space on par with other vehicles in the same price range." "Motorcycle: Offers negligible protection from inclement weather, injuries sustained by the rider are routinely many orders of magnitude worse than injuries sustained (if any) for another motor vehicle operator in a more traditional, four-wheeled vehicle." But, how many people are interested in these vehicles despite their obvious limitations? Should the limitations be emphasized, or are there other things can and should be said about these vehicles? Again, technology is no different. Why do you persist in these worst case scenarios for your descriptions of Blacknet? Whatever your reason is, it doesn't wash. Blacknet could bring about WWIII and the annihilation of the human race - but so could too many other things. Among all the possible reasons to condemn new or existing tech, because a potential for abuse exists counts as one of the worst. Reese From bill.stewart at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 09:17:57 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:17:57 -0700 Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: <200108280951.CAA14133@igc4.igc.apc.org> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010828083155.02f08930@idiom.com> > > BORDERS U.K. USES FACE-RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY TO MONITOR CUSTOMERS > > Borders Books in the U.K. is employing SmartFace technology to compare Slashdot is reporting that they've backed off in response to negative public pressure. So for the moment you don't need to wear a mask to shop there, though they're probably still using cameras, and in many parts of the UK the local government is also videotaping the street. David Brin's book "The Transparent Society" suggests that you might as well get used to it. Technological change driven by the Moore's Law effects in computing power are making video cameras and computer image processing get cheaper rapidly, so the marginal benefit of using them doesn't have to be very high to outweigh the marginal cost. The real issues are still getting data, but the costs of sharing data are low and getting lower, and the government intervention that forces everyone to use picture ID to do almost anything makes it easier. Brin's conclusion is that since we won't be able to stop it, we should work to make sure government activities are open and watchable by the public. Similarly, the cost of correlating non-image data has decreased rapidly - many of the information collection practices used today date from the 1960s and 1970s, when a "mainframe" might have a megabyte of RAM, less than 10 MIPS of CPU, 100MB of fast disk drive, and everything else was tapes and punchcards, and it required a large staff of people to feed it. These days you can get pocket computers with ten times that capacity, and a $5000 desktop Personal Computer can have a gigabyte of RAM and a terabyte of disk drive with the Internet to feed it data; that's enough for the name and address of everybody on Earth, or a few KB on every American, and online queries are much faster than the traditional methods requiring offline data sets. That means that not only can governments and a few big companies decide to correlate pre-planned sets of data about people, but almost anybody can do ad-hoc queries on any data it's convenient for them to get, whether they're individuals or employees of small or large businesses. So if there's any data about you out there, don't expect it to stay private - even data that previously wasn't a risk because correlating it was hard. European-style data privacy laws aren't much help - they're structured for a world in which computers and databases were big things run by big companies, rather than everyday tools used by everyone in their personal lives, and rules requiring making them accessible to the public can be turned around into rules allowing the government to audit your mobile phone and your pocket organizer in case there might be databases on them. American-style data privacy laws are seriously flawed also - not the fluffy attempts at positive protection for privacy that liberal Nader types and occasional paranoid conservatives propose, but the real laws which require increasing collection of data in ways that are easy to correlate, such as the use of a single Taxpayer ID for employers, bank accounts, drivers' licenses, and medical records, "Know Your Customer" laws, national databases of people permitted to work, documentation proving you're not an illegal alien, etc. There's lots more data that would be readily available, but the bureaucrats that collect it restrict access or charge fees that reflect the pre-computer costs of providing the information. If you need a reminder, go buy a house and look at the junk mail you get, or have your neighbor's deadbeat kid register his car with your apartment number instead of his and see what shows up. From ghjj at hotmail.com Tue Aug 28 07:39:10 2001 From: ghjj at hotmail.com (ghjj at hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:39:10 -0500 Subject: IMPORTANT NOTICE Message-ID: <200108281439.JAA06284@einstein.ssz.com> FREE System Recruits Like Crazy! A Simple, Yet Powerful Marketing System That Produces Maximum Results Very Quickly! Without Having To Recruit or Talk With Anyone! WE DO THE HARD PARTS... - We mail the information packages! - We take all incoming calls! - We give the presentation for YOU! - We answer the questions! - We handle any follow-ups! - We enroll your prospects for you! - WE SUPPLY YOU WITH: - Marketing tools! - a Personalized Self-Replicating Website! - a Powerful 24-hour presentation line! - a 24-hour Fax-On-Demand! - a Professional mail fulfillment center! - We eliminate your long distance bills trying to recruit! YOU KEEP THE CHECK! Take a Free Test Drive and get 2 HOT e-Books! mailto:clari277 at yahoo.com?subject=MORE_INFO { PS: We even give you FREE LEADS every month! } ===>>> Supercharge your MLM *FREE* - Report reveals it all. We deliver you a generic, proven SYSTEM to have them building your opportunity with the speed of lightning! Act now! mailto:bryna481 at yahoo.com?subject=FREE_REPORT ======================================================= REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: You may automatically remove yourself from any future mailings by clicking here. mailto:carolyne568 at yahoo.com?subject=Remove_Me From ghjj at hotmail.com Tue Aug 28 07:39:26 2001 From: ghjj at hotmail.com (ghjj at hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:39:26 -0500 Subject: IMPORTANT NOTICE Message-ID: <200108281439.JAA06313@einstein.ssz.com> FREE System Recruits Like Crazy! A Simple, Yet Powerful Marketing System That Produces Maximum Results Very Quickly! Without Having To Recruit or Talk With Anyone! WE DO THE HARD PARTS... - We mail the information packages! - We take all incoming calls! - We give the presentation for YOU! - We answer the questions! - We handle any follow-ups! - We enroll your prospects for you! - WE SUPPLY YOU WITH: - Marketing tools! - a Personalized Self-Replicating Website! - a Powerful 24-hour presentation line! - a 24-hour Fax-On-Demand! - a Professional mail fulfillment center! - We eliminate your long distance bills trying to recruit! YOU KEEP THE CHECK! Take a Free Test Drive and get 2 HOT e-Books! mailto:clari277 at yahoo.com?subject=MORE_INFO { PS: We even give you FREE LEADS every month! } ===>>> Supercharge your MLM *FREE* - Report reveals it all. We deliver you a generic, proven SYSTEM to have them building your opportunity with the speed of lightning! Act now! mailto:bryna481 at yahoo.com?subject=FREE_REPORT ======================================================= REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: You may automatically remove yourself from any future mailings by clicking here. mailto:carolyne568 at yahoo.com?subject=Remove_Me From bob at black.org Tue Aug 28 09:57:52 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:57:52 -0700 Subject: Aimee's sweet spot Message-ID: <3B8BCD8F.AF1E31A2@black.org> At 10:42 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: > >"BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and >Selling Corporate and National Secrets.... to foreign adversaries, and to >spur the collapse of governments." > BlackPowder: Applied Chemistry for Defeating Knights With Swords With Application to Selling Bibles in venaculars and other Vatican Secrets.... allowing oppressed foreigners to join us, and to spur the collapse of feudalism. From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Tue Aug 28 10:00:05 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:00:05 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison Message-ID: <20010828170005.AAA28450+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa. us> John Young writes: > Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. Of course, this is just part of the continuing trend in defining "crimes" by the subjective fantasies of a party claiming to be aggrieved. *I'M* afraid, therefore *YOU'RE* stalking. *I'M* ashamed, therefore *YOU'RE* indecent. *I'M* poor, therefore *YOU'VE* discriminated. *I'M* offended, therefore *YOUR* book is pornography. In legal circles, this bears a strong resemblance to the rightly-named "Heckler's Veto," in which a crowd deliberately misbehaves in order to have a speaker they disagree with charged with "incitement." The ultimate evolution of such nonsense is clearly the current situation in which Jeff "PussyBoy" Gordon's bad Hattie McDaniel impersonation means Jim Bell has committed a crime. Combine this with Judge Jack "Token Negro With Chip on Shoulder" Tanner's attempts to compensate for his genital inferiority by sentencing people before they commit crimes, and it is easy to see why Jim Bell can get 10 years and $10,000 for doing, as they would say on "Weakest Link," absolutely nothing. The larger question is what are we going to do about it? Somehow "Cypherpunks Write Code" doesn't quite rise to the level of an appropriate response to these pigfuckers. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From emc at artifact.psychedelic.net Tue Aug 28 10:00:05 2001 From: emc at artifact.psychedelic.net (Eric Cordian) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:00:05 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison Message-ID: <20010828170005.AAA28450+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa.us> John Young writes: > Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. Of course, this is just part of the continuing trend in defining "crimes" by the subjective fantasies of a party claiming to be aggrieved. *I'M* afraid, therefore *YOU'RE* stalking. *I'M* ashamed, therefore *YOU'RE* indecent. *I'M* poor, therefore *YOU'VE* discriminated. *I'M* offended, therefore *YOUR* book is pornography. In legal circles, this bears a strong resemblance to the rightly-named "Heckler's Veto," in which a crowd deliberately misbehaves in order to have a speaker they disagree with charged with "incitement." The ultimate evolution of such nonsense is clearly the current situation in which Jeff "PussyBoy" Gordon's bad Hattie McDaniel impersonation means Jim Bell has committed a crime. Combine this with Judge Jack "Token Negro With Chip on Shoulder" Tanner's attempts to compensate for his genital inferiority by sentencing people before they commit crimes, and it is easy to see why Jim Bell can get 10 years and $10,000 for doing, as they would say on "Weakest Link," absolutely nothing. The larger question is what are we going to do about it? Somehow "Cypherpunks Write Code" doesn't quite rise to the level of an appropriate response to these pigfuckers. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 08:42:18 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:42:18 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: GH wrote: > Nomen Nescio wrote: > [snip] > >The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask. If your questions > >are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer > >them. If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can > >be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world) > >then you need a better chart. > > You (and Aimee) make the mistake of assuming that all of us believe that > we are living in the best of all possible worlds. *sigh* > Many people however > believe that we [read: our government(s)] are in a downward spiral that > is converging on police-and-welfare-state. In the US for example, we > long ago abandoned our constitution. We still give it much lip service > and we still have one of the "more free" societies but things are > trending in the wrong direction. > > Each year more oppressive laws are passed, more things are made illegal > to say or write or - if some have their way - think. (And of course it > goes without saying that these things that are prohibited to us are > available to "authorized users": those in intelligence, law enforcement, > etc. - the usual "more equal" individuals.) I might understand this better than you think. > At the same time, more twits like you and Aimee spring up, always ready > to say "no, you mustn't say such things - you don't really mean that, do > you? How could anyone even think such things?" Twit: my pet name in here. > As Tim has pointed out over and over, you need to read up on cypherpunks > themes, goals and history. His signature has included this inscription > for years (though he seems not to be using it lately): > > Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > knowledge, reputations, information markets, > black markets, collapse of governments. > > Did you think he didn't really mean it? I'm not sticking my head in that noose. > As a start on getting up to speed on alternatives to our current "system > of government" (and excellent entertainment besides), I recommend you > read these works: > "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson > "The Ungoverned" by Vernor Vinge > There are many others that could be added to this list but just reading > these will give you a taste of some alternative societies that might be in > many ways preferable to the current kleptocracy. > > - GH (who admits he's been heavily influenced by Mr. May) So, now, it's... "BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets.... to foreign adversaries, and to spur the collapse of governments." Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like that? Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would contribute to such a project? ~Aimee From mmotyka at lsil.com Tue Aug 28 11:02:18 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:02:18 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <3B8BDCAA.3FFA7C4E@lsil.com> "Aimee Farr" wrote : > GH wrote: > > > Nomen Nescio wrote: > > [snip] > > >The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask. If your questions > > >are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer > > >them. If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can > > >be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world) > > >then you need a better chart. > > > > You (and Aimee) make the mistake of assuming that all of us believe that > > we are living in the best of all possible worlds. > > *sigh* > Am I wrong or is there a latent idea here that the list members are in a position to choose whether or not these ( yes, Virginia, they're morality neutral ) privacy enhancing technolgies come to be? While the participants here may represent a large portion of those interested and capable of producing PETs they aren't the whole club. If there is a privacy and untraceability sweet spot why suppose that it is not already exploited by those with large financial gains to be made from it? Were a major drug cartel ( or a large corporation ) to decide that developing communications systems was a key factor in their continuing success it seems to me that the resources to do so would be easy to come by. Hell, they were making a pretty decent sized submarine not so long ago. I think a SW/HW product effort would be far easier to hide. There's probably a shop full of busy Russian engineers somehwere in SA right now. I don't believe that a whole battalion of Gordons could ever stop them. All that you can choose is whether you participate in creating PETs or not. > So, now, it's... > > "BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and > Selling Corporate and National Secrets.... to foreign adversaries, and to > spur the collapse of governments." > > Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like that? > Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would > contribute to such a project? > > ~Aimee > Have the GRU list-watchers ( your handlers! ) demonstrated their power adequately by shtomping a few punk heads? Has speech here been sufficiently chilled that nobody will answer? Or is it just a dumb question? Create a real project with real rewards ( both financial and idealogical but mostly financial ) and see what kind of response you get. Why should anyone answer a dishonest question for free? Mike From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 09:17:48 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:17:48 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010828073539.00853c50@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: > At 01:02 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: > >That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. > >However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive > tool, and damn > >sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for > shopping out > >secrets to Libya. > > The point is, if its not *good enough* for taboo > activity, its not good enough for everyday uses. > > And of course, tools are neutral; the knife OJ dressed his ex > with was not an 'evil' piece of metal. Neither are guns. > > As metalsmiths, we might regret how we make it easier to slice > members of our species, much as as technologists we might regret > that nets+crypto makes some copyright unenforcable, or how networked > boxes have an unintended side-effect of lessening privacy. > > As the first metalsmiths might have observed, no matter the pros > and cons of this development, its out there, its possible, > folks will be competing to refine it, so get used to it. > > You can always write a tome afterwards like Albert Hoffman's "My Problem > Child" if you need to explain later. > > That being said, if you object to dark 'marketing' on a personal > level, well, sure, but that's merely your personal taste. Tim makes me think that "BlackNet" is already fielded. If not, why not? After all, it's been around since 1992-3. (Now, if Tim had buyer-interest, that would make me think differently about BlackNet.) ~Aimee From frissell at panix.com Tue Aug 28 08:26:38 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8BAD0E.2EAEC970@black.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Subcommander Bob wrote: > At 08:20 AM 8/28/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: > >Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled > >country. > > LOL. To some of us, the UK *is* a communist-controlled country, > however this is completely irrelevent to the IRA/UK spat. > Indeed, the UK is currently ruled by a socialist government. The Labour Party remains, officially, a socialist party. DCF From bill.stewart at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 11:39:52 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:39:52 -0700 Subject: Scarfo Judge Politan lets FBI Not Tell how bugging was done. Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010828113712.02d67ec0@idiom.com> Sigh. The FBI buggers convinced Nicky Da Judge to let them slide. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/21296.html FBI let off cyber snooping hook By Kieren McCarthy Posted: 28/08/2001 at 10:41 GMT The FBI has been let of the hook in its court case against mobster Nicodemo Scarfo. US District Judge Nicholas Politan has now ruled that the Bureau will not have to reveal precisely how it managed to log evidence that Mr Scarfo was involved in illegal gambling and loan sharking. Mr Scarfo's lawyers claim that the FBI bugged him without possession of a bugging warrant and so the evidence it gathered is inadmissible in court since it was obtained illegally. Previously Judge Politan said the FBI would have to reveal how it managed to bug Mr Scarfo's computer after it had failed to unscramble encrypted files on his computer. Not unreasonably, the judge said that for him to decide whether it had been obtained legally or not, he would have to know the method that was used. This information would have had to be given to the defence. But the US government has persuaded the judge that the defence should only get an "unclassified summary". How'd it do that? Well, would you believe it but there's some strange law that can be invoked at times such as this. This one is called the Classified Information Procedures Act - which amazingly allows information to be withheld if national security is at risk. The FBI also promised to give a secret meeting in which it would go into further details over how the system worked. The FBI installed some kind of key-logging software on Mr Scarfo's machine after it failed to crack his encryption software. Since it didn't have a warrant to bug him, Mr Scarfo's lawyers say his constitutional rights have been infringed. The FBI says the technology it is using falls under current bugging legislation but many remain unconvinced and claim the FBI is going beyond current laws. It doesn't inspire confidence either when the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, testified to the Senate a few weeks ago that he was "not familiar" with key-logging technology. That seems about as likely as the Pope being a closet Jew, but then Robert wouldn't lie, would he? Many observers will be concerned at the failure for the American legal system to bring out into the open the unnerving possibilities that the latest technology makes available to intelligence agencies. . Related Stories FBI chief Mueller lied to Senate about key-logging Mafia trial to test FBI psying tactics From Info at BusinessCardCDR.com Tue Aug 28 09:05:46 2001 From: Info at BusinessCardCDR.com (BusinessCardCD-R.COM) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:05:46 -0400 Subject: Introducing BusinessCardcdr.com Message-ID: <200108281611.MAA28000@tisch.mail.mindspring.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6219 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 10:11:41 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:11:41 -0500 Subject: Aimee's sweet spot In-Reply-To: <3B8BCD8F.AF1E31A2@black.org> Message-ID: I see that. > At 10:42 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: > > > >"BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying > and > >Selling Corporate and National Secrets.... to foreign adversaries, and > to > >spur the collapse of governments." > > > > BlackPowder: Applied Chemistry for Defeating Knights With Swords > With Application to Selling Bibles in venaculars and other Vatican > Secrets.... > allowing oppressed foreigners to join us, and to spur the collapse of > feudalism. > > Yeah, ok, that was good. I see the point, damn it. :) It's just that I see other points, too, okay? Forgive me for caring. I won't do it again. ~Aimee From Pagoda8779 at aol.com Tue Aug 28 09:16:30 2001 From: Pagoda8779 at aol.com (Pagoda8779 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:16:30 EDT Subject: explosives Message-ID: <75.1a369fee.28bd1dde@aol.com> http://members.tripod.com/ied0/index.htm From gil_hamilton at hotmail.com Tue Aug 28 12:50:43 2001 From: gil_hamilton at hotmail.com (Gil Hamilton) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:50:43 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Nomen Nescio wrote: [snip] >The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask. If your questions >are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer >them. If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can >be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world) >then you need a better chart. You (and Aimee) make the mistake of assuming that all of us believe that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. Many people however believe that we [read: our government(s)] are in a downward spiral that is converging on police-and-welfare-state. In the US for example, we long ago abandoned our constitution. We still give it much lip service and we still have one of the "more free" societies but things are trending in the wrong direction. Each year more oppressive laws are passed, more things are made illegal to say or write or - if some have their way - think. (And of course it goes without saying that these things that are prohibited to us are available to "authorized users": those in intelligence, law enforcement, etc. - the usual "more equal" individuals.) More of our incomes are stolen to be redistributed to the lazy and undeserving, who have every incentive to continue voting for the politicians who will continue to transfer money from productive individuals to them. At the same time, more twits like you and Aimee spring up, always ready to say "no, you mustn't say such things - you don't really mean that, do you? How could anyone even think such things?" As Tim has pointed out over and over, you need to read up on cypherpunks themes, goals and history. His signature has included this inscription for years (though he seems not to be using it lately): Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments. Did you think he didn't really mean it? As a start on getting up to speed on alternatives to our current "system of government" (and excellent entertainment besides), I recommend you read these works: "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson "The Ungoverned" by Vernor Vinge There are many others that could be added to this list but just reading these will give you a taste of some alternative societies that might be in many ways preferable to the current kleptocracy. - GH (who admits he's been heavily influenced by Mr. May) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From noone at nuther-planet.net Tue Aug 28 05:58:14 2001 From: noone at nuther-planet.net (Nob Odie) Date: 28 Aug 2001 12:58:14 -0000 Subject: Reporter's Phone Records Subpoenaed Message-ID: Reporter's Phone Records Subpoenaed By Pete Yost Associated Press Writer Monday, Aug. 27, 2001; 6:44 p.m. EDT WASHINGTON �� The Justice Department obtained by subpoena the home telephone records of an Associated Press reporter for a period in which he wrote about the investigation of Sen. Robert Torricelli, the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan has disclosed. In an Aug. 20 letter, the office of U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White said the government subpoenaed telephone records of John Solomon for incoming and outgoing calls at the reporter's home from May 2 to May 7. White was appointed last spring to oversee the Torricelli investigation. Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden declined to comment on the matter Monday. On May 4, an AP story under Solomon's byline quoted unidentified law enforcement officials as saying Torricelli had been recorded on a wiretap in 1996 discussing fund-raising with relatives of a prominent Chicago crime figure. Law enforcement officials can face criminal penalties for disclosing information obtained under federal wiretaps. The unidentified officials told the AP that the intercepted call received new scrutiny two years later when allegations surfaced of thousands of dollars in illegal straw donations to Torricelli's campaign. According to the AP story, the law enforcement officials said several people have been questioned about the intercept and whether Torricelli or his staff ever encouraged them to disguise donations. "We are outraged by what the Justice Department has done and we will seek any available legal redress," said AP President and CEO Louis D. Boccardi. "Their actions fly in the face of long-standing policy that recognizes what a serious step it is to go after a reporter's phone records. We hope that this secret assault on the press is not an indication of the Bush administration's attitude toward a press free of government interference," Boccardi said. First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams said a Justice Department subpoena of a journalist's telephone records was extremely rare. "I cannot say that every time the government seeks to obtain telephone records of journalists it necessarily violates the First Amendment, but there's no doubt that the decision of the government to go so far as to obtain these telephone records raises constitutional questions of a high order of delicacy," Abrams said. Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson approved the subpoena for the reporter's records, according to the letter mailed to Solomon. Attorney General John Ashcroft disqualified himself from the matter. Torricelli campaigned last year for Ashcroft's Democratic opponent in the U.S. Senate race in Missouri. Ashcroft lost to Jean Carnahan, who stepped in after her husband was killed in a plane crash. � Copyright 2001 The Associated P From simulacron at terra.es Tue Aug 28 06:58:17 2001 From: simulacron at terra.es (simulacron at terra.es) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:58:17 -0100 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From burntcircuit at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 10:29:36 2001 From: burntcircuit at yahoo.com (BurntCircuit) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:29:36 -0400 Subject: up-to-date remailer info Message-ID: im looking for info on up to date remailing... including chainers that will work in windows nt 4 and up and server list and stuff... can anyone help out? _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 11:30:42 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:30:42 -0500 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010828170005.AAA28450+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa . us> Message-ID: > The ultimate evolution of such nonsense is clearly the current situation > in which Jeff "PussyBoy" Gordon's bad Hattie McDaniel impersonation means > Jim Bell has committed a crime. Bad karma, buddy. > Combine this with Judge Jack "Token Negro With Chip on Shoulder" Tanner's > attempts to compensate for his genital inferiority by sentencing people > before they commit crimes, and it is easy to see why Jim Bell can get 10 > years and $10,000 for doing, as they would say on "Weakest Link," > absolutely nothing. There's only one thing worse than calling agents.... > The larger question is what are we going to do about it? Somehow > "Cypherpunks Write Code" doesn't quite rise to the level of an appropriate > response to these pigfuckers. > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" Your little .sig would make a cute footnote to a judge's opinion. I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed to let convicts dig their own graves. ~Aimee In multiloquio non effugies peccatum. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 11:30:49 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:30:49 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8BDCAA.3FFA7C4E@lsil.com> Message-ID: Mike: > > Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a > project like that? > > Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would > > contribute to such a project? > > > > ~Aimee > > > Have the GRU list-watchers ( your handlers! ) demonstrated their power > adequately by shtomping a few punk heads? > > Has speech here been sufficiently chilled that nobody will answer? > > Or is it just a dumb question? > > Create a real project with real rewards ( both financial and idealogical > but mostly financial ) and see what kind of response you get. Why should > anyone answer a dishonest question for free? > > Mike It wasn't serious, Mike! ~Aimee From mmotyka at lsil.com Tue Aug 28 13:56:12 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:56:12 -0700 Subject: Borders UK and privacy Message-ID: <3B8C056C.3DD60CE2@lsil.com> Duncan Frissell >On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Bill Stewart wrote: > >> David Brin's book "The Transparent Society" suggests that you >> might as well get used to it. Technological change driven by >> the Moore's Law effects in computing power are making >> video cameras and computer image processing get cheaper rapidly, >> so the marginal benefit of using them doesn't have to be very high >> to outweigh the marginal cost. The real issues are still getting data, > >On the other hand, the technology of disguise and the public taste for >radical body modification and active clothing all suggest that many of us >will soon be denying a useful image to the opposition. Then we won't have >to worry until genetic sniffers become popular. > >Genetic sniffers, however can probably be defeated by devices that give >off clouds of genetically random human biological material. > Didn't John Young note that a large portion of the waste removed from the London underground was human hair and skin flakes? Waste not want not. >Offense and defense back and forth forever. > >DCF >---- >Marshal de Vaubin -- No stronghold be ever invested stood. No position he >ever defended fell. From frissell at panix.com Tue Aug 28 11:10:14 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010828083155.02f08930@idiom.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Bill Stewart wrote: > David Brin's book "The Transparent Society" suggests that you > might as well get used to it. Technological change driven by > the Moore's Law effects in computing power are making > video cameras and computer image processing get cheaper rapidly, > so the marginal benefit of using them doesn't have to be very high > to outweigh the marginal cost. The real issues are still getting data, On the other hand, the technology of disguise and the public taste for radical body modification and active clothing all suggest that many of us will soon be denying a useful image to the opposition. Then we won't have to worry until genetic sniffers become popular. Genetic sniffers, however can probably be defeated by devices that give off clouds of genetically random human biological material. Offense and defense back and forth forever. DCF ---- Marshal de Vaubin -- No stronghold be ever invested stood. No position he ever defended fell. From xinhui-zh at 163.com Mon Aug 27 23:20:29 2001 From: xinhui-zh at 163.com (xinhui) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:20:29 +0800 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108280612.XAA00603@toad.com> ���к���ⷰ� �ҹ�˾���й���½һ�ҹ��ʻ��˹�˾�����пɾ�Ӫ"���ʹ��ڿ��˿�ݵ�����ҵ��"�����գ �ע����ڹ㶫ʡ�麣�У�ע���ʽ�250��Ԫ����ҡ�����˾ӵ������ƽ��Ӣ�ߵĴ��ͻ��֣ �����޸۹��ʻ�����ͷ��1.5�������˾��������ۡ����š�̨��ͬ���г���Ѱ��һ�Һ ���ⷰ飬��ӭ�κ���ʽ�ĺ������ɲ��뾭Ӫ��� ������´�½���ʻ���ҵ�ĸ۰�̨ͬ�������ҹ�˾��ϵ�� ��E-mail:xinhui-zh at 163.net���� Looking for Business Partners Located in Zhuhai city, Guangdong Province, with 2.5 million RMB Yuan of registered capital, the company is an international freight forwarder holding "International and Domestic Airfreight, Express Mail Distribution and Delivery Business"license. It has warehousing space of 30,000 square feet and only 1.5kms from Jiuzhou Harbour international container terminal. Due to the potential growing market, we now intend to expand our business. To achieve this, we sincerely invite people of the same trade from HongKong, Macau and Taiwan to hold talks with us. We welcome any forms of colaboration, jointly run ajoint venture can be one of the options. Those who share common interest with us please contact us as soon as possible. (E-mail: xinhui-zh at 163.net) _______________________________________________________________________ ��������Ϣ���Ұ��������ƹ㡣 ��ӭ����www.BuySell-114.com����ɸ114����վ�� ����ҵ�����ݡ���ϵ�绰����ַ�����Ͼ��ܿ�����Ч���ʹ�DZ�ڿͻ��� ��ϵ�绰��0756��2525742 �й� �麣 From bogus@does.not.exist.com Tue Aug 28 05:24:15 2001 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:24:15 +0200 Subject: Fwd: NewsScan Daily, 27 August 2001 ("Above The Fold") Message-ID: > >'PARASITIC GRID' COULD UNDERMINE WIRELESS REVENUES >An underground movement is afoot to deploy free wireless access zones in >urban areas, building on the increasing popularity of wi-fi or 802.11b >technology -- a standard for wireless Ethernet that works on an unlicensed >portion of the spectrum. The movement, dubbed the "parasitic grid" by some, >is already thriving in New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, British >Columbia and London. The concept is based on community-minded volunteers, >who offer other Internet users within a certain range -- say 300 feet -- a >"free ride" on their wireless connections. The trend is not going unnoticed >by the large wireless carriers in these cities. "We are aware of the free >services springing up and are considering 802.11b wireless access as well, >not in place of currently scheduled rollouts but as an adjunct," says an >AT&T Wireless spokesman. Meanwhile, so-called "aggregators" have developed >software that resides in the mobile device that can find any available >network and connect the user to it, creating, in effect, metropolitan-wide >free networks that may ultimately compete with fee-based wireless services. >"It would even be able to say, 'Here is a list of the networks found' and >indicate which are free and which charge a fee," says an official at a >company that provides 802.11b services at hotels and airports. (InfoWorld 24 >Aug 2001) >http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/08/24/010824hnfreewireless.xml [...] From mmotyka at lsil.com Tue Aug 28 15:21:41 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:21:41 -0700 Subject: 2:3 ain't bad Message-ID: <3B8C1975.5FDBF754@lsil.com> > It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B) > in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support. > Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world. > Corporate Executives A, B, sort of C From a3495 at cotse.com Tue Aug 28 12:24:54 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Thinking About the Crypto Unthinkable Message-ID: Tim wrote: >Well, good luck. I disagree. I can't see someone coming out of a Ph.D. >program in "super analysis" being magically endowed with the skills to >influence policy. There's nothing magical about it: I never said any amount of formal education is "guaranteed" to do a thing for you--it is very much where you are, who you know, and what you can get them to tell you. But even in the richest of environments, if you're not making the effort to acquire fundamental analytic skills, you might as well concede that you don't "speak the language" and would be better off taking the "capitol hill ho" route instead. Which is odious--and overrated, I might add. >An obvious point that perhaps needs to be emphasized: all of those >scientist-policy wonks we have discussed were first and foremost >brilliant scientists. Absolutely. But they all shared a certain mindset which made them far more than that, the whole point of bringing them up in the first place. Is that something anyone can teach you? Probably not. Does it depend on having an extremely high IQ and a lot of innate raw potential? You bet. But once you make the decision that there's something to be gained by demanding a lot from yourself, you need to find the right kind of program to facilitate getting you where you need to be to best further your ideas. And as far as I can tell, for me, the "super analyst" approach is the way to go. If you have any other suggestions I'd be glad to hear them. There's no lack of smart cypherpunk-friendly lawyers, but brilliant pro- freedom policy analysts are in short supply. If more people here at least considered this an option, I think it would be a good thing. ~Faustine. From jya at pipeline.com Tue Aug 28 15:52:19 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:52:19 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: References: <20010828170005.AAA28450+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa . us> Message-ID: <200108281959.PAA00091@mclean.mail.mindspring.net> Aimee Farr could be a nice lady lawyer who just appeared here by serendip or a ... MS shiteater operating under the entrapment rules of IRS investigation manual. Speaking what my nose tells me about Aimee's taunts and ear licks here, and after smelling the shit spread in Tanner's courtroom, she's very dirty. Jeff and Rob and the undercover agents behaved exactly the same and relished displaying the effect of their sucker punches to the jury. Anybody who has been responding to Aimee's emails in a manner that has her name in the To: is fucked, but the same is true if you didn't do that but decided instead to eat her bait and flaunt your superior intelligence. According to the IRS manual she's working with associates here ricocheting bank shots, though the associates may be her other shiteating nyms. Me, I joke about this stuff Aimee acts way too serious about and nothing she's (or he's or they've) posted here under any nym is to be taken seriously outside a Tanner-thighslap jury rig. I figure there is more than one operation underway here, and not all of them know what the others are doing. Christ, the feeding is so bountiful they're probably shiteating each other's. Which is what happens when cybercrimebusters have resources beyond their abilities. From www.realwealthandhealth.com at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 28 16:23:49 2001 From: www.realwealthandhealth.com at einstein.ssz.com (INSIDER) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:23:49 Subject: Want money? Message-ID: <200108282030.PAA09412@einstein.ssz.com> WWW.REALWEALTHandHEALTH.com From www.realwealthandhealth.com at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Tue Aug 28 16:23:54 2001 From: www.realwealthandhealth.com at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (INSIDER) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:23:54 Subject: Want money? Message-ID: <200108282030.PAA09417@einstein.ssz.com> WWW.REALWEALTHandHEALTH.com From actionjl65 at mail.com Tue Aug 28 13:31:25 2001 From: actionjl65 at mail.com (Garnet Jackson) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:31:25 -0400 Subject: Real Prospects Ready to Purchase your Product Message-ID: <200108282033.PAA09516@einstein.ssz.com> Dear Fellow Entrepreneur, I am offering you the opportunity to either earn a little extra income or provide yourself with enough extra time to relax and enjoy life. I can IMMEDIATELY send you a FREE 7 lesson marketing course with principles that work for any kind of business whether in cyberspace or in the brick and mortar world. Send a blank email to garnetj65 at lycos.com with Marketing Course in the Subject line and the course is yours and remember its FREE. Now, if you are still looking for some kind of business that offers you a lot of FREE software why not send a blank email with Referral in the subject line and its Yours FREE! $299 Value! Complete Reprint and Resell Rights To Over 1000 Hot Selling Reports! Sell Them, Learn From Them. Get Yours FREE Now While Stocks Last! Click on: garnetj65 at lycos.com Think US$25!!!! One of your greatest challenges is to find prospects to market your product to. Right? Not anymore. Do you have a product that you are offering for $10 or are you looking for persons to join your downline. Just think, if you had 10,000 persons to target and only 1 out of every 100 responded then for that 100 responses your profit would be $975. What if you needed 3 persons in your downline paying $25 then immediately you start making $2475 in profit monthly. Either way you are guaranteed a very good rate of return on your US$25 investment which is even better that any stock market. My personal guarantee to you is if you send me a blank email NOW at garnetj65 at lycos.com with 10,000 in the subject line I will send you with this purchase an additional 1000 FREE!!! and guarantee you a delivery rate better than 90%. Added to that I will give you a FREE Bulk Mailer. Click on the link garnetj65 at lycos.com and let me know your interest. The choice is yours!! What will it be? THINK AND THEN SIGN UP BEFORE YOU LOSE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY!!!! Garnet Jackson garnetj65 at lycos.com From gil_hamilton at hotmail.com Tue Aug 28 16:46:41 2001 From: gil_hamilton at hotmail.com (Gil Hamilton) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:46:41 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Aimee Farr wrote: >"BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and >Selling Corporate and National Secrets.... to foreign adversaries, and to >spur the collapse of governments." > >Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like >that? >Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would >contribute to such a project? Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter. See, for example, http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto - GH _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tue Aug 28 08:13:54 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:13:54 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: 'PARASITIC GRID' COULD UNDERMINE WIRELESS REVENUES Message-ID: Would seem it's high time trying to get Mojo and Freenet to do onion routing, preparing for the wireless wave. Here's some work in progress on XML-RPC interface to Mojo (identical to Freenet). From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tue Aug 28 08:18:07 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:18:07 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: 'PARASITIC GRID' COULD UNDERMINE WIRELESS REVENUES (fwd) Message-ID: an idiot wrote: > Would seem it's high time trying to get Mojo and Freenet to do onion > routing, preparing for the wireless wave. Here's some work in progress > on XML-RPC interface to Mojo (identical to Freenet). doh, forgot the URL: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/~checkout~/mojonation/evil/hackerdocs/LJ_article.html?content-type=text/html From bear at sonic.net Tue Aug 28 17:28:24 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:28:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: >It wasn't serious, Mike! Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the "Sweet spot" discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you and Tim seem to have started over it, we've been seeing nothing but absolutely dead serious opportunities to get roped in on some thought- crime charge or other, a couple of months or a couple of years or a decade from now. I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say. For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word: The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most radical two percent of the population, there are implications, aren't there? For Tim: Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call someone *else* an agent provocateur. For Aimee, a message couched in her own style of bafflegab: I both read, and Read, your more oblique communications. Nice work, and fun, but not useful on this list. You are playing a game where the white chips count for houses, and the red chips count for lifetimes. Don't ask directly about the blue chips, because you run the risk that someone will answer you just as directly. And *especially* don't ask about the markers; you don't have time. The only way to win this game is to be the dealer. Oh, you may go a ways as the dealer's moll, but I'm talking about winning, not just amusing yourself. Look out for confusing mirrors; some of the players may have looked into your hand and seen their own. Be careful not to make the same mistake. Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't think. Instead, I shall spend my time writing code. Code which I do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me. I encourage those who can, to do the same. Bear From frissell at panix.com Tue Aug 28 14:29:16 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <200108281959.PAA00091@mclean.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, John Young wrote: > Tanner's courtroom, she's very dirty. Jeff and Rob and the > undercover agents behaved exactly the same and > relished displaying the effect of their sucker punches > to the jury. But that's no excuse for JB not sucker punching back. The only reason for running your own defense is so that you can get nastier in cross-ex than a lawyer can. If you can't do it, you're better off having a lawyer do everything. I think JB had the worst of both worlds - a lawyer who he alternately ignored and fought with. I wasn't there but just an impression. > Anybody who has been responding to Aimee's emails in a > manner that has her name in the To: is fucked, but the > same is true if you didn't do that but decided instead > to eat her bait and flaunt your superior intelligence. I think Jeff used up all the low-hanging fruit on the list. Anyone else he goes after comes expensive. Maybe Choate but would he really be worth it. Anyone with half a brain could put on a stronger defense than the two previous victims. We either have the money or the emotional resources to corral a defense. CJ & JB didn't really even try. For example, neither got real lawyers. > I figure there is more than one operation underway here, > and not all of them know what the others are doing. Christ, > the feeding is so bountiful they're probably shiteating each > other's. Which is what happens when cybercrimebusters > have resources beyond their abilities. They need an overt act. Mere chat won't be enough. DCF ---- Do under others as they would do unto themselves. -- The First Rule of MetaLaw. The problem with the Golden Rule is that tastes may differ. From sonofgomez709 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 17:31:13 2001 From: sonofgomez709 at yahoo.com (CJ Parker) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A Jeff Gordon By Any Other Name... Message-ID: <20010829003114.35323.qmail@web20208.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: CDR: Re: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison John Young writes: > Motherfucking sonsofbitching shiteaters. Of course, this is just part of the continuing trend in defining "crimes" by the subjective fantasies of a party claiming to be aggrieved. *I'M* afraid, therefore *YOU'RE* stalking. *I'M* ashamed, therefore *YOU'RE* indecent. *I'M* poor, therefore *YOU'VE* discriminated. *I'M* offended, therefore *YOUR* book is pornography. ------------------------------------------------------- I'm afraid I just don't understand the connection between NASCAR and the IRS. Must be some kind of ConsPiracy, or SomeThing, Eh? SonOfGomez709 <--(an obvious forgery...) "Stalking Jeff Gordon (the RaceCar Driver) By Mistake, Since August 6, 2001" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From frissell at panix.com Tue Aug 28 14:37:00 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <1742b50f7c27c08e467fc2911ac10b77@dizum.com> Message-ID: > It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B) > in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support. > Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hutus, Tutsis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians, Commodities traders, Branch Davidians, homosexuals, hetrosexuals.... I could go on for pages but I'm telnetting. Some members of all of those groups have satisfied your somewhat arbitrary requirements at various times and in various places in the last 60 years. DCF ---- If you want to get rid of communists in government jobs; get rid of the government jobs. - Frank Chodorov. From goin2winn2001 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 17:42:55 2001 From: goin2winn2001 at yahoo.com (goin2winn2001 at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:42:55 Subject: FREE MONEY FOR YOU !!!! Message-ID: <200108282249.RAA10720@einstein.ssz.com> THE WANNA BEE FOUNDATION Let us put the pieces together for YOU The Wanna Bee Foundation is NOT a Multi-Level Company. It has NO matrix or payout. We are not putting hundreds of thousands of people into MLM programs, not even hundreds, only a few will get this opportunity to have a chance to become a member of the "Wanna Bee Foundation". Your entry is voted on by the members, then placed into 3 MLM companies (FREE). Only after you are in profit in at least 2 of them, are you required to pay your monthly dues to each of the companies. The annual fee is $29.95. Each individual company will send you a recruiting kit after you become a member. GUARANTEE -- We guarantee you to be in profit before you are asked to complete the applications FOR THE INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES. We will mail out, at no extra cost to you, from one to three million offers a month. All members joining from this email advertising will be placed in all of your downlines. ALL THIS FOR $29.95. PLEASE VISIT: http://hometown.aol.com/joinwbf FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS EXCITING OPPORTUNITY. If you are accepted by the WBF, they pay your way into all three companies (any kit fees, plus first month fees). When you are in profit in at least two of the three companies, you are asked to join, and then have 10 days to respond or you lose your position on the team. As a Safelist Emailer member, they mail the WBF information with your ID on it. You even get a copy of the leads that your email advertisement generated (generally between 800 to 3000 per month). You may also use the same leads for any purpose you choose, they can be emailed to you. Now, with each WBF member getting from one to three million email adds sent each month, that adds up to millions + millions of people world wide getting our message each and every month. With this system, getting only one one-hundredth of one percent on the Internet, this will still put new members in each company for YOU every month. Then, the new members will team with you to do more mailings. This message is sent in compliance of the new email bill HR 1910. Under Bill HR 1910 passed by the 106th US Congress on May 24, 1999, this message can not be considered spam as long as we include the way to be removed. Per Section HR 1910., please type REMOVE in the subject line and reply to this email. All removal requests are handled personally and immediately From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 28 15:42:56 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:42:56 -0500 Subject: CommVerge - Software defined radio Message-ID: <3B8C1E70.2CC28D93@ssz.com> http://www.e-insite.net/commvergemag/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA149525&pubdate=8/1/01& -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From morlockelloi at yahoo.com Tue Aug 28 17:46:58 2001 From: morlockelloi at yahoo.com (Morlock Elloi) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20010829004658.4827.qmail@web13204.mail.yahoo.com> > I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial > that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your > "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This > one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say. > > For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word: > > The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, > to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind So you are suggesting that, because of the fear for one's life and rented property, posters shut the fuck up and don't make waves ? Isn't that the *goal* and raison d'etre of TLAs ? So, to join fingerpointing on this e-mail list (like in "not a movement"), it seems that you, JYA and others cautioning about imminent arrests are furthering the cause of TLAs, and therefore probably are their contractors, no ? ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From jya at pipeline.com Tue Aug 28 18:00:22 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:00:22 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: References: <200108281959.PAA00091@mclean.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108282207.SAA14057@blount.mail.mindspring.net> DF wrote: >They need an overt act. Mere chat won't be enough. True, to a point. What constitutes an act appears to be going through a dramatic redefinition in cybercrime and allegedly terrorist-related actions. An overt act is not the same for everyone; authorities commit acts (crimes) that the rest of us cannot. And according to the IRS investigation manual it is fair game: to encourage such blurred-line-crossing actions, even taking part in them to vet the promoter; to lie and deceive to get the actions underway; to lie in court to conceal how it was done and who promoted the actions. In the light that another reported has been subpoenaed for notes it worth pondering if, as in the case of Bell and CJ, journalists played a role in promoting line-crossing behavior, not by doing the job they are known to do, but by redefinition of the blurred line between reporting and provoking. Neither Bell nor CJ would have been sent to prison without the complicity of the media, witting or unwitting, and in my opinion, witting moreso. Same goes for this list, which is for me, a member of the media, and no doubt a member of other conclaves yet to be revealed in court and to be sure the hypermedia -- that is the media in which there is a very blurred line (maybe none at all) between the authorities and the traditional media. Look, this swipe is not about Declan and the guy at Bell's trial. That is far too simple. What it is about is not taking for granted avowals of innocence of trusted third parties no matter what cloak they wear, for those TTP cloaks are now clearly being used to entrap gullible actors. And any of the TTPs who say this is paranoid have got a problem of credibility derived primarily from the overly-concerted effort to protect their own privilege even as they shop their subjects as mere news, not quite getting the full story right due to a blinding reliance on voices (grammar, syntax, coherency, narrative) of authority which sound just like the authorities -- ducks quacking like ducks. To not blindly tar everyone with this, I concede that those who have overtly proven they are trustworthy and continue to do so overtly, that is in public under fire, deserve a chance on trust on short-terms. Talk about deserving trust from any previleged position is just authoritarian talk. And citing how many of your fellows have been thrown in jail or suffered for their role aint worth shit unless you are one of them. Then your talk aint all quack. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 16:34:36 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:34:36 -0500 Subject: 2:3 ain't bad In-Reply-To: <3B8C1975.5FDBF754@lsil.com> Message-ID: Mike said: > > It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B) > > in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable > to support. > > Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world. > > > Corporate Executives A, B, sort of C I have reason to think you would find _considerable_ interest. However, they want a complete solution with a personal touch. ~Aimee From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tue Aug 28 10:18:16 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:18:16 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <"20010828170005.AAA28450+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa. us"> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote: > The larger question is what are we going to do about it? Somehow > "Cypherpunks Write Code" doesn't quite rise to the level of an > appropriate response to these pigfuckers. The most appropriate response would seem to implement http://zolatimes.com/v2.26/jimbell.htm with the judge being the first name on the list. Getting digicash to work would be a real starter, anynymous donation submission infrastructure another step. Of course, cypherpunks are either too lazy, or to chicken for that. Eugene <-- both From xinhui-zh at 163.com Tue Aug 28 04:28:32 2001 From: xinhui-zh at 163.com (xinhui) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:28:32 +0800 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108281125.GAA04753@einstein.ssz.com> ���к���ⷰ� �ҹ�˾���й���½һ�ҹ��ʻ��˹�˾�����пɾ�Ӫ"���ʹ��ڿ��˿�ݵ�����ҵ��"�����գ �ע����ڹ㶫ʡ�麣�У�ע���ʽ�250��Ԫ����ҡ�����˾ӵ������ƽ��Ӣ�ߵĴ��ͻ��֣ �����޸۹��ʻ�����ͷ��1.5�������˾��������ۡ����š�̨��ͬ���г���Ѱ��һ�Һ ���ⷰ飬��ӭ�κ���ʽ�ĺ������ɲ��뾭Ӫ��� ������´�½���ʻ���ҵ�ĸ۰�̨ͬ�������ҹ�˾��ϵ�� ��E-mail:xinhui-zh at 163.net���� Looking for Business Partners Located in Zhuhai city, Guangdong Province, with 2.5 million RMB Yuan of registered capital, the company is an international freight forwarder holding "International and Domestic Airfreight, Express Mail Distribution and Delivery Business"license. It has warehousing space of 30,000 square feet and only 1.5kms from Jiuzhou Harbour international container terminal. Due to the potential growing market, we now intend to expand our business. To achieve this, we sincerely invite people of the same trade from HongKong, Macau and Taiwan to hold talks with us. We welcome any forms of colaboration, jointly run ajoint venture can be one of the options. Those who share common interest with us please contact us as soon as possible. (E-mail: xinhui-zh at 163.net) _______________________________________________________________________ ��������Ϣ���Ұ��������ƹ㡣 ��ӭ����www.BuySell-114.com����ɸ114����վ�� ����ҵ�����ݡ���ϵ�绰����ַ�����Ͼ��ܿ�����Ч���ʹ�DZ�ڿͻ��� ��ϵ�绰��0756��2525742 �й� �麣 From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 28 17:50:05 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:50:05 -0500 Subject: OPT: The Internet backlash Message-ID: <3B8C3C3D.88757376@ssz.com> http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/9409/1.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 17:52:24 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:52:24 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the > archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is > Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter. > See, for example, > http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto > > - GH No. There wasn't even a clickwrap. ~Aimee From Ester3204 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 28 20:08:39 2001 From: Ester3204 at hotmail.com (Ester3204 at hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:08:39 Subject: Win One of 25 Dream Vacation Getaways!! . Message-ID: <200108281254.HAA05686@einstein.ssz.com> You have been specially selected to qualify for the following: Premium Vacation Package and Pentium PC Giveaway To review the details of the please click on the link with the confirmation number below: http://www.freewebdirect.net/wintrip Confirmation Number#Lh340 Please confirm your entry within 24 hours of receipt of this confirmation. Wishing you a fun filled vacation! If you should have any additional questions or cann't connect to the site do not hesitate to contact me direct: mailto:vacation at btamail.net.cn?subject=Help! From michael0442 at hotmail.com Tue Aug 28 20:08:39 2001 From: michael0442 at hotmail.com (michael0442 at hotmail.com) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:08:39 Subject: A Vacation on us! . Message-ID: You have been specially selected to qualify for the following: Premium Vacation Package and Pentium PC Giveaway To review the details of the please click on the link with the confirmation number below: http://www.freewebdirect.net/wintrip Confirmation Number#Lh340 Please confirm your entry within 24 hours of receipt of this confirmation. Wishing you a fun filled vacation! If you should have any additional questions or cann't connect to the site do not hesitate to contact me direct: mailto:vacation at btamail.net.cn?subject=Help! From jya at pipeline.com Tue Aug 28 20:18:31 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:18:31 -0700 Subject: Bell Testimony Day 1 Message-ID: <200108290025.UAA05140@blount.mail.mindspring.net> Anonymous has provided a transcript of Jim Bell's first day of testimony: http://cryptome.org/jdb040601.htm Under questioning by his attorney Robert Leen, Jim testifies about his background and education, work experience and business affairs. Among other points he describes his exchanges on cypherpunks, dealings with an IRS undercover agent, his political beliefs, why he wrote Assassination Politics, encryption, and research in public databases. Other testimony by Jim will be provided soon. From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 28 20:44:44 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:44:44 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108290347.f7T3l3f28282@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 02:37 PM, Duncan Frissell wrote: >> It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, >> (B) >> in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to >> support. >> Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world. > > Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hutus, Tutsis, Vietnamese, Chinese, Russians, > Commodities traders, Branch Davidians, homosexuals, hetrosexuals.... > > I could go on for pages but I'm telnetting. > > Some members of all of those groups have satisfied your somewhat > arbitrary requirements at various times and in various places in the > last > 60 years. I posted a list half a dozen years ago of "enemies of the people." Quakers, Mormons, homosexuals, Protestants, Catholics, and on and on...my CFP slide listed about a hundred. Search engines may turn it up. I would do the search myself, except I'm fed up with posting such information and not even having twits like Aimee Farr even read the oldest and most basic documents. (Her recent horrified reaction to very basic points is illustratative of her ignorance.) --Tim May From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 28 19:15:10 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:15:10 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Sklyarov Indicted Message-ID: <3B8C502E.7B4B78A1@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/29/0128232.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 28 21:18:57 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:18:57 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108290421.f7T4LAf28473@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:28 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > >> It wasn't serious, Mike! > > Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the > "Sweet spot" discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you > and Tim seem to have started over it, Nonsense. I wrote a very long essay. Aimee twittered about her "prime rib" SS contacts, muttered about going out to "talk to the snails," and gibbered about how my mention of BlackNet could expose me to "suicide" and was a generally scary idea. > I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial > that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your > "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This > one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say. You're being overly paranoid. I was stopped by the SS a few years ago and accused of planting a bomb to kill the First Criminal, his traitorous wife, and their (mostly innocent, insipidly so) daughter Chelsea. When they couldn't make their charges stick, they had to let me go. (This is why I take bomb-making discussions pretty seriously.) > For Tim: > Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things > that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's > interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call > someone *else* an agent provocateur. Get an education. Do some reading. These ideas have been discussed many times. Aimee's all atwitter over being exposed to ideas that were old even in 1992, and you, the "sensitive male" (so I gather from you airy-fairy, probably polyamoristic, twit site), are enabling her fluttering by saying "Tim, you should not even mention such dangerous ideas!" Fuck that. Read what we were talking about 10 years ago. Not talking about things doesn't make them disappear. You're a disgrace to this list. At lease Aimee has the excuse of being a confused chick. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 28 21:23:13 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:23:13 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108290425.f7T4PNf28508@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: >> Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the >> archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is >> Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter. >> See, for example, >> http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto >> >> - GH > > No. > > There wasn't even a clickwrap. > > Works for me. And, besides, it's available at a dozen other sites just by entering the phrase into a search engine. You've been told about these sources. You've been told about the Ludlow books, the Cyphernomicon, the Levy book. And you would have encountered these ideas with the most cursory of examinations of the archives. Yet you profess ignorance. Well, no surprise, as you _are_ ignorant. --Tim May From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 28 19:47:46 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:47:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Inferno: The UN killed the recording industry (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:37:37 -0400 Subject: Inferno: The UN killed the recording industry "On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now, more than 50 years later, the declaration could be just the thing to pull down the recording industry. And it all boils down to a little history, a little technology, and a clause in the Universal Declaration called Article 19" http://www.shift.com/web/columns/column014.asp Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Doesn't touch on what happens if someone "copyrights" your "opinion" or prevents you from proving your "opinion" that a copyright infrigement protection process is flawed but it's an interesting perspective w/ a few new aspiring additions to Freenet. From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 28 22:01:34 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:01:34 -0700 Subject: Federal Agent Aimee Farr In-Reply-To: <200108281959.PAA00091@mclean.mail.mindspring.net> Message-ID: <200108290503.f7T53kf28725@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 03:52 PM, John Young wrote: > Aimee Farr could be a nice lady lawyer who just appeared > here by serendip or a ... MS shiteater operating under the > entrapment rules of IRS investigation manual. Do a search on her name in Google. Essentially no signs of her on the Net until _early 2001_. She appears on several libertarian-oriented lists, including an Extropians list, PGP Users, and a Cypherpunks list, asking leading questions about possible actions. Prior to early 2001, little that I can find. (Maybe she changed her name, maybe she didn't even have her "pobox.com" account, or maybe she only got active when she attached herself to so many crypto and libertarian groups...which would be really strange, given her expressed antipathy to the goals. Not a very good agent provacateur!) And this in Waco, a few miles from where the Bush team has been setting up at the Crawford ranch. (Waco is where most of the agents actually live, there being no real apartment buildings in Crawford or Prairie Chapel!) She drops hints about the "prime rib" she's now getting "down the street" from all the SS agents in town. She gets active in provoking PGP Users, Extropians, and Cypherpunks just as the Bush boys are moving into Waco and Crawfod. Coincidence? She posts comments here designed, she apparently thinks, to "out" us. > Speaking what my nose tells me about Aimee's taunts > and ear licks here, and after smelling the shit spread in > Tanner's courtroom, she's very dirty. Jeff and Rob and the > undercover agents behaved exactly the same and > relished displaying the effect of their sucker punches > to the jury. My strong hunch is that she's either tied-in directly to the SS staff in Waco, is assigned to the area by the FBI, or is is doing her own independent entrapment so as to present us to them the way a cat presents a mouse to its master. Aimee suddenly gets involved in "pro-liberty" mailing lists in Jan-March 2001, despite being obviously anti-liberty. Aimee apparently has a "sole proprietor" offices in Waco, just where the SS has set up camp, and only 8-10 miles from the Bush ranch. Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have "committed suicide." Fed-lovers in Waco certainly ought to understand the phenomenon. So, Aimee, low-paid GS-14, or even lower-paid GS-12? (Jeff, Agent Farr is way too stupid even to work for the FBI!) --Tim May From nobody at dizum.com Tue Aug 28 13:10:14 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:10:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <22ebd9dc05f660c3951f13946e142bc0@dizum.com> >Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled >country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting The naivety of poster is appaling. I hope that "freedom fighters" in a "communist-controlled country" is used as a placeholder for "something good as positive" but I wouldn't bet on it. Apparently ability to spell "crypto" does not imply political sapiense beyond that of inbred pigfucking redneck from Alabama (this is a place holder). You guys just want to do good things, like spreading crypto, right, without bothering much to figure out who's who on the planet. I have seen more intelligent dicourses on global politics and society on late night shopping channel shows than here. Fortunately crypto is good in itself. Any crypto anywhere is a good crypto. From tcmay at got.net Tue Aug 28 22:27:36 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:27:36 -0700 Subject: Federal Agent Aimee Farr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108290529.f7T5Tif28864@slack.lne.com> On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 10:10 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: >> Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have "committed suicide." > > Nope. > > Sen gene sarho`s musun?! = Are you drunk again? > > A strange question from one who rambles incoherently and talks about "going out to talk to the snails." Doing more searches, I find you also asking leading (and ignorant, as fits the prosecutorial model) questions on the Freehaven list. Again, in 2001. Why your sudden involvement in early 2001 in all the lists being tarred by the government as havens of anarchist and terrorist thought? Where was your interest in Netly things prior to the Bell arrest in late 2000? There seem to be no entries for you prior to late 2000. Are you in contact with SS members in Waco and Crawford? Are you feeding them tidbits from our list? Or are they just the "prime rib" you joked about getting now that Bushies are in town? (Assuming you were already in town when they arrived. Did you arrive _with_ them? I could talk about what searches I'm doing of "Aimee E. Farr," but I understand how the Feds consider this kind of research to be "interstate stalking," so I won't. Suffice it to see that I find surprisingly little history of you. Less history, in fact, that the prosecuting attorney in the Brian West case just turned up. If you have a history prior to late 2000, it's essentially nonexistent in readily-available sources. Time to hit the DMV and hospital files, I guess.) --Tim May From frissell at panix.com Tue Aug 28 19:28:34 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:28:34 -0400 Subject: 2:3 ain't bad In-Reply-To: <3B8C1975.5FDBF754@lsil.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010828220815.03f062f0@frissell@brillig.panix.com> At 03:21 PM 8/28/01 -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > > It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B) > > in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support. > > Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world. > > >Corporate Executives A, B, sort of C The point is that virtually anyone in an OECD country will qualify at some time or another as to (A) and (B) and to *someone* as to (C). They are wealthy enough but they may not know they have a use for anonymity technologies ( though many use SSL daily without even knowing it). The beauty of a networked world is that anyone no matter how bizarre can find others who accept you and potentially know enough about these useful technologies to share them with you. Given the over-representation of libertarians in crypto, corporate execs are the least in need of such "connected" friends. DCF ----- Anyone know where I can get a "Shit Happens" Cat Hat to wear to my plea negotiations? From nobody at dizum.com Tue Aug 28 14:00:17 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:00:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <1742b50f7c27c08e467fc2911ac10b77@dizum.com> On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 8:04 AM, Tim May wrote: > On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 11:20 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > > On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:56 PM, Tim May wrote: > >> On Monday, August 27, 2001, at 12:40 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: > >>> "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much money > >>> do they have? More importantly, how much are they willing and able to > >>> spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market technologies? These guys > >>> aren't > >>> rolling in dough. > >> > >> The IRA and the Real IRA have a lot of money, as the Brits have been > >> complaining about recently. Osama bin Laden is said to control more > >> than > >> a billion dollars. And so on. I disagree with you assertion that "these > >> guys aren't rolling in dough." > > > > Members of the IRA are not freedom fighters in a communist-controlled > > country. bin Laden did fall under that definition when he was fighting > > to get the Russians out of Afghanistan but that was a long time ago. > > Now he's opposing American influence in Saudi Arabia. > > Your reading comprehension sucks. I gave half a dozen _examples_, one of > them "freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes" and you assume > this is the only kind of freedom fighter being talked about. No point in > carrying on a conversation with this breathtaking display of literalism. The reason why "in communist-controlled regimes" is relevant is because you advanced it as an example of MORALLY acceptable use of technology (presuming that most readers will oppose communism). The objection was raised, yes, it is moral, but is it profitable? There are not many communist-opposed freedom fighters around today, not much money to be made there. You came back and mentioned the IRA and bin Laden. It is true, both of these are well funded. But this does not answer the objection. The point was, can you find groups that are both profitable to sell to, and morally acceptable? The latter consideration is what led to the "in communist-controlled regimes" limitation in the first place. You can't just throw that part out without losing the moral acceptability which motivated the example in the first place. bin Laden and the IRA have plenty of money, but will many cypherpunks agree with their politics? It's hard to believe that anyone thinks that if the IRA or bin Laden were to succeed in their goals, that they would put in place a kindler and gentler state. It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B) in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support. Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 21:16:23 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:16:23 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bear wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: > > >It wasn't serious, Mike! > > Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the > "Sweet spot" discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you > and Tim seem to have started over it, we've been seeing nothing but > absolutely dead serious opportunities to get roped in on some thought- > crime charge or other, a couple of months or a couple of years or a > decade from now. Yep. > I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial > that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your > "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This > one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say. > > For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word: > > The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, > to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind > which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders > of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that > time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for > this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every > fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most > radical two percent of the population, there are implications, > aren't there? > > For Tim: > Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things > that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's > interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call > someone *else* an agent provocateur. > > For Aimee, a message couched in her own style of bafflegab: :) > I both read, and Read, your more oblique communications. Nice work, > and fun, but not useful on this list. You are playing a game where > the white chips count for houses, and the red chips count for lifetimes. > Don't ask directly about the blue chips, because you run the risk that > someone will answer you just as directly. And *especially* don't ask > about the markers; you don't have time. The only way to win this game > is to be the dealer. Oh, you may go a ways as the dealer's moll, but > I'm talking about winning, not just amusing yourself. Look out for > confusing mirrors; some of the players may have looked into your hand > and seen their own. Be careful not to make the same mistake. You have good eyes, Bear. I'll be a good girl from now on. I just watched Hannibal: the brain scene. "Quid pro quo, Clarice...quid pro quo....." *shiver* ....reminds me of somebody in here. > Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't > think. Instead, I shall spend my time writing code. Code which I > do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me. I encourage > those who can, to do the same. > > Bear I support strong crypto. Again, I find Steele's arguments persuasive and legitimate. ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 22:02:48 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:02:48 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108290425.f7T4PNf28508@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: Tim: > On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: > > >> Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the > >> archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is > >> Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter. > >> See, for example, > >> http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto > >> > >> - GH > > > > No. > > > > There wasn't even a clickwrap. > > > > > > Works for me. > > And, besides, it's available at a dozen other sites just by entering the > phrase into a search engine. > > You've been told about these sources. You've been told about the Ludlow > books, the Cyphernomicon, the Levy book. And you would have encountered > these ideas with the most cursory of examinations of the archives. > > Yet you profess ignorance. > > Well, no surprise, as you _are_ ignorant. > > --Tim May Sen gene sarho`s musun?! ~Aimee From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 22:10:46 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:10:46 -0500 Subject: Federal Agent Aimee Farr In-Reply-To: <200108290503.f7T53kf28725@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: > Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have "committed suicide." Nope. Sen gene sarho`s musun?! = Are you drunk again? ~Aimee From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Tue Aug 28 22:20:05 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:20:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 2nd Annual Consult Hyperion Digital Identity Forum, London (11/01) (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:34:30 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu, cryptography at wasabisystems.com, e$@vmeng.com Subject: 2nd Annual Consult Hyperion Digital Identity Forum, London (11/01) --- begin forwarded text Status: U User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:25:40 +0100 Subject: 2nd Annual Consult Hyperion Digital Identity Forum, London (11/01) From: Dave Birch To: Bob Hettinga Hi Bob, Can you pass this on to the appropriate lists, thanks. The 2nd Annual Digital Identity Forum will be held in London on November 7th and 8th 2001. The Forum is sponsored by Hitachi, with additional help from NCipher and our supporting publications: Net Profit and Finance on Windows. The goal of the Forum is to share knowledge in the whole field of digital identity: not just the technical aspects of PKI and the like, but the business and social aspects that will shape this emerging field. The speakers will therefore include legal personnel, IT specialists, an economist, business people, a psychologist and others. Confirmed speakers include: John Bullard of Identrus (US/UK). Stefan Brands of McGill University (Canada). John Noakes of Microsoft (UK). Alan Asay of Bolero (UK). Psychologist Kristina Downing Orr (UK). Steve Bowbrick of Another.com (UK). John Borking, Data Protection Commissioner for The Netherlands (NL). Economist John Browning, former editor of Wired UK (UK). Enrique Mazon of SafeLayer (Spain). David Jeal of Vodafone (UK). Dave Wentker of Visa (US). Peter Cattaneo of Sun Microsystems (US). Mike Dell of Neurodynamics (UK). Jon Matonis of Hush Communications (Eire). Caspar Bowden of Foundation for Information Policy Research (UK). It is an excellent opportunity to meet some interesting people working in the field and, hopefully, get exposure to some different ways of thinking about the issues in the Digital Identity field. We always strive to bring together diverse interests to stimulate genuine debate and valuable discussion. As is traditional at the Consult Hyperion Fora, the first day will end with champagne round tables to discuss a selection of interesting issues. The round table hosts will include Nicko van Someren of NCipher and David Birch of Consult Hyperion. For more information, see http://www.digitalidforum.com/ or contact David Birch at Consult Hyperion directly. The Digital Identity Forum is a not-for-profit event and any surplus generated will go to local charities. Thanks to the generosity of our sponsors and delegates, in recent years we have been able to support: The Pond Meadow school for children with severe disabilities, Guildford. The International Myeloma Foundation, Edinburgh. The Fountain Centre for Palliative Cancer Care, Guildford. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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 Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From aimee.farr at pobox.com Tue Aug 28 22:41:35 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:41:35 -0500 Subject: Federal Agent Aimee Farr In-Reply-To: <200108290529.f7T5Tif28864@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: > >> Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have "committed suicide." > > > > Nope. > > > > Sen gene sarho`s musun?! = Are you drunk again? > > > > > > A strange question from one who rambles incoherently and talks about > "going out to talk to the snails." > > Doing more searches, I find you also asking leading (and ignorant, as > fits the prosecutorial model) questions on the Freehaven list. Again, in > 2001. > > Why your sudden involvement in early 2001 in all the lists being tarred > by the government as havens of anarchist and terrorist thought? > > Where was your interest in Netly things prior to the Bell arrest in late > 2000? There seem to be no entries for you prior to late 2000. > > Are you in contact with SS members in Waco and Crawford? Are you feeding > them tidbits from our list? Or are they just the "prime rib" you joked > about getting now that Bushies are in town? > > (Assuming you were already in town when they arrived. Did you arrive > _with_ them? I could talk about what searches I'm doing of "Aimee E. > Farr," but I understand how the Feds consider this kind of research to > be "interstate stalking," so I won't. Suffice it to see that I find > surprisingly little history of you. Less history, in fact, that the > prosecuting attorney in the Brian West case just turned up. If you have > a history prior to late 2000, it's essentially nonexistent in > readily-available sources. Time to hit the DMV and hospital files, I > guess.) > > > --Tim May My, you're playful tonight. You already know there is nothing there. And, if I was anything like that, you would handle it a little differently. I get your message, Tim. ~Aimee From Law Tue Aug 28 23:16:25 2001 From: Law (Law) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:16:25 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications From: Seth Johnson Organization: Real Measures Subject: Outreach Volunteers Needed - Content Control is a Dead End To: CYBERIA-L at LISTSERV.AOL.COM I'm sending this because I am looking for concerned individuals who understand the importance of the following cause: Content control is a dead end. The legal tradition in copyright has always drawn a distinction between facts and ideas on one hand, which nobody can own; and expression on the other hand, which is what has been allowed to be copyrighted. The thing is, data elements are facts, whether they are part of an expressive work or not. Free speech, the use of information and the very purpose of copyright are being revised by publishers and other "content" stakeholders by means of "content" control measures, such as the American Digital Millennium Copyright Anticircumvention Act, and the provisions of the international TRIPS treaty. Currently, a Russian citizen, Dmitry Sklyarov, is being prosecuted for felony charges under the DMCA, for work he did in developing software that decrypts the Adobe e-Book. The Copyright Clause in the US Constitution is geared toward allowing Congress to grant artificial monopolies ("exclusive Right" for "limited Times" to "Writings and Discoveries") in order to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It does not grant copyright as a natural right, and it does not provide for the superseding of free speech by this power of Congress. Do you agree that content control must not be allowed to enable copyright to supersede our free speech right to process and distribute information? We need outreach volunteers and coordinators who wish to help get the word out about what is going on, and to build the constituency of those who are affected by these developments. If you agree that content control must not be allowed to enable copyright to supersede free speech rights, then please contact me, or subscribe to the C-FIT Content Control Outreach discussion list by sending an email saying "subscribe C-FIT_Release_Community" to ListServ at realmeasures.dyndns.org. Seth Johnson seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Information Producers Initiative Basic Position Statement: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/C-FIT/Theory1.htm ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request at listserv.aol.com ********************************************************************** --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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 Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org Tue Aug 28 23:16:25 2001 From: seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:16:25 -0400 Subject: Outreach Volunteers Needed - Content Control is a Dead End References: <3B751713.5529AB82@Realmeasures.dyndns.org> <20010811140801.P23884@networkcommand.com> Message-ID: <3B8C88B9.87C28BC0@Realmeasures.dyndns.org> I'm sending this because I am looking for concerned individuals who understand the importance of the following cause: Content control is a dead end. The legal tradition in copyright has always drawn a distinction between facts and ideas on one hand, which nobody can own; and expression on the other hand, which is what has been allowed to be copyrighted. The thing is, data elements are facts, whether they are part of an expressive work or not. Free speech, the use of information and the very purpose of copyright are being revised by publishers and other "content" stakeholders by means of "content" control measures, such as the American Digital Millennium Copyright Anticircumvention Act, and the provisions of the international TRIPS treaty. Currently, a Russian citizen, Dmitry Sklyarov, is being prosecuted for felony charges under the DMCA, for work he did in developing software that decrypts the Adobe e-Book. The Copyright Clause in the US Constitution is geared toward allowing Congress to grant artificial monopolies ("exclusive Right" for "limited Times" to "Writings and Discoveries") in order to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It does not grant copyright as a natural right, and it does not provide for the superseding of free speech by this power of Congress. Do you agree that content control must not be allowed to enable copyright to supersede our free speech right to process and distribute information? We need outreach volunteers and coordinators who wish to help get the word out about what is going on, and to build the constituency of those who are affected by these developments. If you agree that content control must not be allowed to enable copyright to supersede free speech rights, then please contact me, or subscribe to the C-FIT Content Control Outreach discussion list by sending an email saying "subscribe C-FIT_Release_Community" to ListServ at realmeasures.dyndns.org. Seth Johnson seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Information Producers Initiative Basic Position Statement: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/C-FIT/Theory1.htm From support at jagnik.com Wed Aug 29 04:58:42 2001 From: support at jagnik.com (JAGnik) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:58:42 -0700 Subject: JAG: The Show, The Cast and Crew, The Convention Message-ID: <200108292147.OAA14495@toad.com> To remove your address from our mailing database please click the following link http://www.jagnik.com/remove.asp?address=cypherpunks at toad.com PRESS RELEASE Date: August 19, 2001 Organization: JAGnik Association PO Box 2000 Florence, Arizona 85232-2000 Contact: Barbara Badeaux Convention Coordinator Phone: (520) 868-1994 Email: Convention at JAGniik.com Web Site: www.JAGnik.com "JAG" Fans Worldwide Gather To Celebrate The Hit TV Series Florence, AZ, August 19, 2001 - On October 12th through the 15th at the Four Points Sheraton LAX in Los Angeles join die-hard JAGnik fans from the United States, Australia, Denmark, England, Italy and elsewhere to meet the stars and celebrate their enthusiasm for the hit TV series, "JAG," the story of the United States Navy's Judge Advocate General's program, at the JAGnik Invasion 2001. For six years and running, JAG, the overwhelmingly popular CBS television military drama has riveted millions of diehard viewers to their seats with outstanding programming. Terrorism, rape, murder, UFO's, women's rights, the Gulf War - JAG tackles them all like no other TV series has ever done. Now meet the stars, directors, writers, get autographs, and find out how they do it. If you are JAG fan, you can't miss this! The JAGnik 2001 convention - the 2nd one of its kind -- will host panel discussions with the cast and crew of JAG, as well as autograph sessions, a charity auction, and a "Charity Brunch" with the stars of one of the most popular programs ever produced. JAG's "Top Gun" stars are expected to be there. Heartthrobs David James Elliot as Lt. Cmdr Harmon Rabb, Jr. and Catherine Bell as Lt. Colonel Sarah "Mac" MacKenzie, who portray military legal eagles who investigate, prosecute, and defend Navy and Marine personnel around the world. Together with Patrick Labyorteaux (Lt. Bud Roberts, Jr.), John M. Jackson (Admiral, former Navy SEAL, Chegwidden), Karri Turner (Lt. jg Harriet Sims), Randy Vasquez (Gunny Victor Valendiz), Chuck Carrington (PO3 Tiner), and Trevor Goddard (Mic Brumbly) the lawyers explore issues facing today's military personnel. Schedules permitting, many of them plan to be there for you to meet. Meet people behind the cameras - writers, production staff - along with recurring stars and occasional guests too. Participate in panel discussions. Let them tell you how JAG develops from an idea into a one-hour action packed finished product. The autograph sessions, auction, and brunch will give the fans a chance to get to know and talk with the stars who portray their favorite characters. Go to on site locations where it really happens. Jagnik Invasion 2001 will be held October 12 - 15 at the Four Points Sheraton LAX in Los Angeles, CA. Information about the convention can be found at our website, www.JAGnik.com or by calling Barbara Badeaux at (520) 868-1994, or writing JAGnik Association, PO Box 2000, Florence, Arizona 85232-2000. We comply with proposed federal legislation regarding unsolicited commercial e-mail by providing you with a method for your e-mail address to be permanently removed from our database and any future mailings from our company. To remove your address from our mailing database please click the following link http://www.jagnik.com/remove.asp?address=cypherpunks at toad.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4138 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nobody at dizum.com Tue Aug 28 20:01:49 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 05:01:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <0f53f3486932cbc297568a31fcbb595a@dizum.com> Nomen says: > bin Laden and the IRA have plenty of money, but will many cypherpunks agree with their politics? It's hard to believe that anyone thinks that if the IRA or bin Laden were to succeed in their goals, that they would put in place a kindler and gentler state. It remains a challenge to identify groups that are both (A) wealthy, (B) in need of anonymity technologies, and (C) morally acceptable to support. Freedom fighters don't fit all that well, in today's world. ======================================================================== What total bullshit -- And what's that previous bs about drug cartels being morally unacceptable? Drug dealers are heros in today's world, we need to take lessons from them. Look how they deal with judges and prosecutors down in Columbia -- works for me! Seems like a real Good Thing@ in light of Jim Bell, Brian West, etc. Why do you say Osama bin Laden is not our friend? The enemy of my enemy is my friend, not so? Osama has no interest in taking over the US, just in cutting off the head of the snake. Sounds like a great idea. The IRA wants to kick the Brits out of Ireland, another good idea, should have happened long ago. IRA are great patriots. So is bin Laden, so am I. Maybe we could develop tools that the drug cartels would pay for, or bin Laden, and that all mankind would benefit from. Maybe they could pay for them by killing judges and prosecutors here for us. Seems like a fair trade. From nobody at dizum.com Tue Aug 28 21:50:09 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 06:50:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <2597f149a51918cb1e857bc831b38969@dizum.com> Ray Dillinger writes: > I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial > that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your > "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This > one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say. If only there was some technology that would let you post, and say whatever you wanted... something that cypherpunks might have invented... something that would provide you a shield so that even unpopular speech can be presented with little fear of retribution. If only. Well, maybe someday. > The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, > to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind > which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders > of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that > time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for > this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every > fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most > radical two percent of the population, there are implications, > aren't there? According to http://www.msnbc.com/news/602062.asp: "Between 1990 and 2000, the rate of Americans who were imprisoned skyrocketed -- from 1 in every 218 Americans to 1 in every 142. That translated to over 1,500 additional inmates each week. Over 3 percent of the U.S. population was in the corrections system." Most of these are black, so if you're white you're not affected so much. > Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't > think. Instead, I shall spend my time writing code. Code which I > do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me. I encourage > those who can, to do the same. And who is the one posting under his own name? From honig at sprynet.com Wed Aug 29 07:51:46 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:51:46 -0700 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation In-Reply-To: <3B8CF894.1525F188@ssz.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010829075146.00857270@pop.sprynet.com> At 09:13 AM 8/29/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/28/1868/27867 I've been reading the cover article in Time magazine about home schooling, and it makes me wonder. One of the primary questions the article poses is this: "Home schooling may turn out better students, but does it create better citizens?" Also present is the accusation that home schooling threatens the current public education system: "Home schooling is a social threat to public education," says Chris Lubienski, who teaches at Iowa State University's college of education. "It is taking some of the most affluent and articulate parents out of the system. These are the parents who know how to get things done with administrators." Funny that, a State employee putting home education down. In any case, the notion that parents should sacrifice their children for the good of society is abhorrent. From stephanie.key at etransmail2.com Wed Aug 29 08:18:42 2001 From: stephanie.key at etransmail2.com (Stephanie Key) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:18:42 -0700 Subject: Product Give Away - Take 5 ! Message-ID: <200108291516.f7TFGSO01902@ak47.algebra.com> If you cannot view this message, please visit http://www.globalzon2k.com/news_vercheck1.htm G7 Productivity Systems, Inc. is sending this email to its subscribed users. You are subscribed as: cypherpunks at algebra.com FREE Products shipped in Full Retail Packaging Pick up to 5 of each! Fortune. (149.99 value) DataScan (149.99 value) eXpressForms 2000 (129.99 value) TransForm Personal (59.99 value) VersaClips (19.99 value) ? Fortune: Relationship manager and addressbook ? DataScan: Business card and telephone directory scanning software ? ExpressForms 2000: Forms, Invitation and Greeting Card generator to publish on the Internet ? TransForm Personal: Scan and convert your paper forms into editable electronic forms in seconds. ? VersaClips: Accentuate your checks, website and documents with handcrafted background images. Click on any of the graphics above to add your FREE products! About VersaCheck 2001 VersaCheck enables businesses and individuals to create their own custom checks. All it takes is a desktop printer, blank paper and VersaCheck software! The checks look professional and are fully bankable. VersaCheck is available at most computer retail stores and online. It works with most accounting and personal finance software such as Quicken, Money, QuickBooks, Peachtree and many more. Four popular versions to choose from: VersaCheck 2001 Personal Home & Business Professional Premium VersaCheck Comes with High Quality Blank Security Check Stock Available Colors: Tan, Burgundy, Green and Blue Sample Check Please call 800-303-2620 for questions or assistance regarding this offer. Thank you very much. Best regards, Stephanie Key Customer Relationship Executive 800-303-2620 To change your communication preferences Click Here or simply reply to this Email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. Copyright © Globalzon, Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 11472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 06:36:28 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:36:28 -0500 Subject: OPT: Slashdot | IBM Running Linux On Secure Hardware Message-ID: <3B8CEFDC.D633EFB9@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/28/2211246.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 06:42:23 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:42:23 -0500 Subject: Gruesome Movie Sparks Outrage Message-ID: <3B8CF13F.8AB9CE49@ssz.com> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,46315,00.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 07:13:40 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:13:40 -0500 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation Message-ID: <3B8CF894.1525F188@ssz.com> http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/28/1868/27867 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 07:24:27 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:24:27 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Outreach Volunteers Needed - Content Control is a Dead End (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 06:58:12 -0400 From: "R. A. Hettinga" To: dcsb at ai.mit.edu, cryptography at wasabisystems.com, Digital Bearer Settlement List Subject: Outreach Volunteers Needed - Content Control is a Dead End --- begin forwarded text From ecareonline at comcast.com Wed Aug 29 07:27:11 2001 From: ecareonline at comcast.com (ECAREONLINE) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:27:11 -0400 Subject: Customer Service Inquiry/Feedback (KMM1418333V94854L0KM) Message-ID: <200108291932.MAA00441@toad.com> Dear Michael, In order to better assist you, please provide us with more specific information as to what you are asking so that we may respond with a specific answer. Thank you for your cooperation. The best way to learn WebSpace is probably to click the "Help" link from the top of the Excite at Home homepage and quickly read the Webspace Help page - http://home-help.excite.com/create_web/overview.html Once you've created a very simple web page, and seen it work, try some of the more advanced features. This is an open-ended process, so don't expect to become a webmaster the first couple days! If you find what look like bugs, check the FAQs, if that isn't sufficient, please call us. If you do not know your local call center's phone number, please visit http://www.comcastonline.com/callcenter.asp for our contact information. This information, as well as other important information regarding your @Home service can be found in the @Home User Guide. Visit our enhanced @Home Help by clicking on the Help link at the top of the @Home page or at http://home-help.excite.com/ If there is anything else we can help you with, please contact us. Thank you for choosing Comcast at Home. Melanie Comcast @Home E-mail Response Specialist Original Message Follows: ------------------------ You didn't answer my question. At 02:59 PM 8/20/2001 -0400, you wrote: >Dear Michael, > >Thank you for your inquiry. > >Here's what you get FREE with @Home WebSpace: > >+ 10 MB of disk space on our WebSpace server for your Web pages. >+ Up to 300 MB/month of bandwidth (i.e., people viewing your pages). >+ Use of advanced features like Java and JavaScript to your heart's = >content. >+ Online account management (in Member Services) for checking disk = >space and for viewing usage information. >+ Online help and hints for HTML authoring, uploading your files, and = >other fun stuff. > >Your web pages are viewable at this URL (Where you substitute your = >username): > >http://members.home.net/username/ > > > >WARNING: The remainder of this message has not been transferred. >The estimated size of this message is 3691 bytes. >Click on the Retrieve From Server icon above and check mail again to get >the whole thing. (If you're reading this in the preview pane, you'll need >to open the message to see the icon.) If the Retrieve From Server icon is >not showing, then this message is no longer on the server. From jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org Wed Aug 29 07:50:16 2001 From: jbdigriz at dragonsweb.org (James B. DiGriz) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:50:16 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot References: Message-ID: <3B8D0128.3020508@dragonsweb.org> Gil Hamilton wrote: > Idiot bimbo writes: > >> [GH writes:] >> > Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the >> > archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is >> > Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter. >> > See, for example, >> > http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto > > >> No. >> >> There wasn't even a clickwrap. > > > My point of course - which through either duplicity or rank ignorance > seems to have gone right over your head - is that your mere presence > on this list as a reader and especially poster of messages is sufficient > to associate you with Tim and his Crypto Anarchist Manifesto brush, and > with Jim Bell and his Assassination Politics, and with CJ and his "plot" > to plant bombs and terrorize federal judges and Bill Gates, and with > Eric Michael Cordian and his defense of BoyNet and NAMBLA, [and lions, > tigers and bears, oh my!] > > > "So let me get this straight, Ms. Farr, you hang out and "cyber-chat" > with these hackers and copyright thieves, and with known anti-government > extremists, anarchists, and convicted chemical-weapon terrorists, and > with pedophiles and child pornographers about how to hide their illegal > acts with this 'encryption technology'. What did you say your purpose > in that was again?" > > > Everyone on this list who isn't already working for the govt can > easily be tarred with the same brush that painted Jim Bell and CJ. > > If you are really too dense to see this, it's time someone spelled it > out for you. And if not, then you clearly are not the disingenue you > profess to be. > > - GH > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > I appreciate her concern. No, I'm not being flip, I genuinely mean that. I would, however, expect her to understand that it is both unfounded and counterproductive, given her overweening concern for discretion. I seriously doubt she's any kind of Federal agent, but she might as well be a Fedtroll. She's playing into her own fears here, and a lot of you are contaging. Don't be such wussies. As for her, if she wishes to be consistent with her professed intent, she should change her tack. From Irving Stone to Ibsen, maybe. As in, say, "Hedda Gabler". If you can't see what she's probably being disengenous about, then, boy are you some kind of nimrod. jbdigriz From mmotyka at lsil.com Wed Aug 29 11:01:51 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:01:51 -0700 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation Message-ID: <3B8D2E0F.22A26DC0@lsil.com> David Honig : >At 09:13 AM 8/29/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >>http://www.Kuro5hin.org/story/2001/8/28/1868/27867 > > I've been reading the cover article in Time magazine about home > schooling, and it makes me wonder. One of the primary questions the > article poses is this: "Home schooling may turn out better students, but > does it create better citizens?" Also present is the accusation that home > schooling threatens the current public education system: > > "Home schooling is a social threat to public education," says > Chris Lubienski, who teaches at Iowa State University's > college of education. "It is taking some of the most affluent > and articulate parents out of the system. These are the > parents who know how to get things done with > administrators." > I think he's probably wrong here - I would guess that the most affluent and articulate parents send their kids to private schools because they're too busy keeping the lifestyle financed to run a school or realize that they would probably suck at it. If I win the Lotto I'll consider it. I'll risk $1 today. > >Funny that, a State employee putting home education down. > Funny that, the only people I've ever met who were home schooling their kids were fundamentalist christians who objected to all kinds of perceived immorality and wrong teaching like sex ed and evolution. In my estimation they were poorly equipped to give their children a good education. I have no doubt that there are many exceptions to what I've seen but those who will do a really fine job of educating their children are probably in the minority of homeschoolers. >In any case, the notion that parents should sacrifice their children >for the good of society is abhorrent. > You mean like when we send young males to war so the ones who stay home will have less competition? Keep an open mind about the home schooling/private schooling vs. public schooling discussion. One facet that I see is that fundamentalists via a strong influence on the republican party are trying to divert public funds to religious organizations. My reading of the 1st is that the state may not establish a religion. Giving money to a religious organization is tantamount to establishment. My reading of the 1st also leads me to the conclusion that the tax-exempt status of the churches is wrong. They should pay their fair share of the fucking property taxes like every other victim. Another facet is that the well-to-do are attempting to remove their funds from the systems so they can use those funds to educate their children as they choose. A voucher system would surely benefit me financially. This is a reasonable desire but it will have a negative effect on the public school systems and a subsequent negative effect on the society as a whole. I know the masses are a bit thick but do you want them to be even thicker? And not all bright people come from priviledged backgrounds. Do you want to limit the opportunities for some of the brightest kids in the country before they've even had a chance? I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) should be ruled out but you should at least think about the implications a bit. Aimee style question : How many of you were home schooled? How many went to private schools? How many went to public schools? I would guess roughly 1% 9% 90% I wish there were more ( and better ) educational choices and that those choices were reflected reasonably in the financial systems but every proposal I've seen so far sucks moose bladder through a hairy straw. Mike From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 09:05:42 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:05:42 -0500 Subject: The Register - CBI warns of UK cybercrime epidemic Message-ID: <3B8D12D6.14D2246C@ssz.com> Funny numbers? http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/23/21339.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 09:59:13 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:59:13 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Australian Court OKs International Net-Defamation Suit Message-ID: <3B8D1F61.25458029@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/yro/01/08/29/1317206.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bear at sonic.net Wed Aug 29 12:19:56 2001 From: bear at sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: cypherpunks don't write code. Message-ID: Squawking on a mailing list is protected behavior, and I figure you can probably do that all you want. As someone else here pointed out, "You have to do something else" before they can arrest you. But now that certain types of code have been criminalized, writing code counts as "something else". So the lesson is, if you squawk on mailing lists, don't write code. If you write code, don't squawk on mailing lists, especially about the illegitimate uses to which criminals may put your code. So we each must come to our own decision; write code, or continue to squawk? Because cypherpunks, unless they want to join the canarypunks, don't write code anymore. My decision is made. Goodbye. This list wasn't a good coding resource anyway; maybe I'll check out perrypunks or something. Happy squawking. And in response to the inevitable "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out", here's my response in advance: Don't let them slam the jail doors on your dicks, I hear that hurts like a sonofabitch. Bear From gil_hamilton at hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 13:32:06 2001 From: gil_hamilton at hotmail.com (Gil Hamilton) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:32:06 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Idiot bimbo writes: >[GH writes:] > > Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the > > archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is > > Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter. > > See, for example, > > http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto >No. > >There wasn't even a clickwrap. My point of course - which through either duplicity or rank ignorance seems to have gone right over your head - is that your mere presence on this list as a reader and especially poster of messages is sufficient to associate you with Tim and his Crypto Anarchist Manifesto brush, and with Jim Bell and his Assassination Politics, and with CJ and his "plot" to plant bombs and terrorize federal judges and Bill Gates, and with Eric Michael Cordian and his defense of BoyNet and NAMBLA, [and lions, tigers and bears, oh my!] "So let me get this straight, Ms. Farr, you hang out and "cyber-chat" with these hackers and copyright thieves, and with known anti-government extremists, anarchists, and convicted chemical-weapon terrorists, and with pedophiles and child pornographers about how to hide their illegal acts with this 'encryption technology'. What did you say your purpose in that was again?" Everyone on this list who isn't already working for the govt can easily be tarred with the same brush that painted Jim Bell and CJ. If you are really too dense to see this, it's time someone spelled it out for you. And if not, then you clearly are not the disingenue you profess to be. - GH _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From honig at sprynet.com Wed Aug 29 14:14:00 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:14:00 -0700 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation In-Reply-To: <3B8D2E0F.22A26DC0@lsil.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010829141400.0085e150@pop.sprynet.com> At 11:01 AM 8/29/01 -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >>Funny that, a State employee putting home education down. >> >Funny that, the only people I've ever met who were home schooling their >kids were fundamentalist christians who objected to all kinds of >perceived immorality and wrong teaching like sex ed and evolution. In my >estimation they were poorly equipped to give their children a good >education. I have no doubt that there are many exceptions to what I've >seen but those who will do a really fine job of educating their children >are probably in the minority of homeschoolers. A number of the top scorers in the academic races they ran this year were home-schooled. *Tell us* about the teaching of natural selection in Kansas' public schools. Ahem. In any case, freedom from compulsion is more important. Its not like public education doesn't include bizarre rituals, (chanting towards flags, uniforms) limited perspectives, and hidden agendas (public schools must encourage registration for the draft by US males). Regardless of the exemplars that you and I have met, its the freedom that matters. >>In any case, the notion that parents should sacrifice their children >>for the good of society is abhorrent. >> >You mean like when we send young males to war so the ones who stay home >will have less competition? *Exactly like that* I was going to include that in one draft... but thought it distracting... glad you brought it up. >One facet that I see is that fundamentalists via a strong influence on >the republican party are trying to divert public funds to religious >organizations. Fundies are a scourge when they open their mouths, no doubt about it. Ship 'em to Afghanistan and let their gods duke it out. From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 29 11:25:24 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison Message-ID: John wrote: >To not blindly tar everyone with this, I concede that those >who have overtly proven they are trustworthy and continue >to do so overtly, that is in public under fire, deserve a >chance on trust on short-terms. Talk about deserving trust >from any previleged position is just authoritarian talk. Maybe this is off on a tangent, but why "trust" anyone unless you have something substantial to gain by it? I don't give anyone my trust or ask to be trusted in return unless I have a damn good reason. In fact, it's significant if I even consent to open an e-mail from someone, much less answer it. How many times has someone "overtly proven themselves trustworthy" and then turned around and stabbed you in the back for no good reason at all? How many times have people here had law enforcement sicced on them over some two-bit petty quibble? Is spilling your guts to people in the interest of ego-enhancing camaraderie really worth the risk you put yourself in by giving them the power of your information to hold over you? No thanks, I'll pass. Don't trust me and I'll be happy to return the favor. Which reminds me, I don't know why people here seem to think that any sort of "deception operation" would come from people who show up using nyms to express unpopular opinions. (e.g. "you said something I don't want to hear; threfore its FUD and you're a fed.") On the contrary, a really first-rate deception job would probably involve having someone post under their own name and acting in apparent good faith for years, only introducing the deceptive elements gradually, after they've had ample time to "overtly prove themselves trustworthy". If you go around assuming everything is as transparent as the "AOL b0mbz kiddiez" troll you're setting yourself up for a rude awakening. Now whether you choose to take that as an empty scare tactic or someone genuinely trying to get you to collectively wake up? Your call. I think one of the biggest lessons to take away from the Bell and Johnson cases is the immense danger of practicing abysmally shitty tradecraft while letting your emotions get the better of you. The unbalanced are always easy prey--using the case documents as a "spot the mistakes" instruction manual for what NOT to do couldn't hurt either. ~Faustine. From news at market-street.com Wed Aug 29 11:25:47 2001 From: news at market-street.com (Market-Street) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:25:47 -0400 Subject: Discover new mailing lists from Market-Street! Message-ID: <4152-220018329182547177@market-street.com> HTML message attached (or) go to the following link: www.market-street.com/newsletters/market-street_enews_ms.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 16868 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mmaynard at azipart.com Wed Aug 29 14:49:00 2001 From: mmaynard at azipart.com (Michael Maynard) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:49:00 -0700 Subject: FC: When anyone can publish, who's a journalist now? Message-ID: In response to Mr. Geer, first of all, he does a cute debating trick of confusing terms. The original question was "who is a writer?" which he changed to "who is a journalist?. There is a big difference. Anyone can write, but not everyone can be a journalist. There are rules and ethics associated with being a journalist, such as verifying facts, using direct quotes only when directly attributible from the source, and requiring at least two sources when verifying information provided from an unknown or questionable oringinal source. These rules and ethics have certainly been diminshed in recent years through the works of self-styled "journalists", like Matt Drudge. However, true journalism, passed down to us from our precedessors, such as H.L. Mencken, is a very honorable and necessary profession. Right now, the world needs more true journalists and less journlistic poseurs who have tried to confuse tabloid-level sensationalism to be real journalism. So, Mr. Geer, your press pass is definitely denied. ********** From action at dcaclu.org Wed Aug 29 12:28:35 2001 From: action at dcaclu.org (action at dcaclu.org) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:28:35 -0400 Subject: 08-29-01 -- ACLU Action Update: Oppose the Expansion of Message-ID: Government Secrecy! TO: ACLU Action Network FR: Jared Feuer, Internet Organizer DT: August 29, 2001 Last year, with little debate and no public hearings, Congress adopted an intelligence authorization bill that contained a provision to criminalize all leaks of classified information. Although President Clinton vetoed the bill, this year's intelligence authorization bill may include the identical provision. If this provision is allowed to become law, it would essentially eliminate the check on government power that public scrutiny provides! To accomplish the crucial role of exposing government misdeeds, most major news outlets often base stories on classified information. A recent example of such a story is the government bungling of the Wen Ho Lee case. If this provision becomes law however, reporters that rely on leaks of classified information to expose government misconduct could be compelled by subpoena to reveal the source of the leak, or go to prison if they refuse. Current law already protects national security by prohibiting the disclosure of certain classified information that could cause serious harm, such as the disclosure of the names of covert agents. This was deemed enough to protect the national security even during the heyday of the Cold War. Take Action! The government should not be allowed to hide its mistakes, incompetence, political embarrassments, and even in some cases, criminal behavior behind a classified stamp. You can read more and send a FREE FAX from our action alert at: http://www.aclu.org/action/classified107.html ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt at coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************************** From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 14:03:59 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:03:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Speaking of blimps... Message-ID: http://www.plantraco.com -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 14:11:14 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:11:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Maybe this is off on a tangent, but why "trust" anyone unless you have > something substantial to gain by it? I don't give anyone my trust or ask to > be trusted in return unless I have a damn good reason. In fact, it's > significant if I even consent to open an e-mail from someone, much less > answer it. > > How many times has someone "overtly proven themselves trustworthy" and then > turned around and stabbed you in the back for no good reason at all? How > many times have people here had law enforcement sicced on them over some > two-bit petty quibble? Is spilling your guts to people in the interest of > ego-enhancing camaraderie really worth the risk you put yourself in by > giving them the power of your information to hold over you? No thanks, I'll > pass. Don't trust me and I'll be happy to return the favor. There was an interesting show on last night about this, I caught it unexpectedly so I don't know channel or title (sorry). It was pretty interesting in that it demonstrated pretty conclusively that 'friendship' and 'trust' are figments of human psychology to cover up reality. The protocol was to have two friends volunteer in a study. They were grouped with two strangers. A set of three of them would then provide hints from a list of 10 items related to the word they were trying to get the fourth person to select. Clearly one of the three must be a 'friend' of the fourth receiving hints. The test was rigged so that the first person did poorly irrespective of the hints (the list of allowable hints was rigged). When the two friends switched the person who did poorly intentionaly picked harder hints from the list. When asked about it afterward they advised they didn't want their friend to do better than them. Etu Brute? -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 14:19:15 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:19:15 -0500 Subject: SIG: Governments push open-source software - Tech News - CNET.com Message-ID: <3B8D5C53.9C99E938@ssz.com> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6996393.html?tag=tp_pr -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jeffersgary at hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 14:40:39 2001 From: jeffersgary at hotmail.com (Gary Jeffers) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:40:39 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: Tim May and anonymous flames. Message-ID: My fellow Cypherpunks, Some time ago Tim May flamed me and I responded with the post: Tim May goes bush shooting. http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.25-2000.10.01/msg00388.html . Note: The 3rd reference was bad. The corrected reference is: http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.18-2000.09.24/msg00167.html . This has gotten me thinking and I have the following observations and conjectures: 1. It is predictable that Tim May will be flammed. The FBI has a history of covertly sowing internal dissent in dissident groups. As a leading Cypherpunk, May is an obvious target. 2. Anonymous flames are dirt cheap and safe for the FBI. 3. The FBI will do them well. By definition, the flames will be professional :-) 4. The flames will be worded so as to distress the target. 5. The flames will be seeded with clues to imply that a particular Cypherpunk did them: distinctive syntax, mispellings, phrases, etc.. This will help make the group ineffective. 6. Other leading Cypherpunks will also be targeted. 7. The anonymous flames will be hard to falsify in their pointing to a particular Cypherpunk. 8. Does anybody have reason to believe that the above is not true? 9. Anybody have any good defenses against this attack. 10. Has this topic been brought up before? Yes, I know! -countless times and I have not done my homework. :-) Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers BEAT STATE!!!! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From acdesai at facstaff.wisc.edu Wed Aug 29 14:44:07 2001 From: acdesai at facstaff.wisc.edu (Anuj Desai) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:44:07 -0500 Subject: When anyone can publish, who's a journalist now? Message-ID: Declan, Your readers might be interested in knowing that many courts have been forced to deal with the question, "Who is a journalist?" over the years in circumstances similar to what appear to be Ms. Leggett's. Several states have laws, known as shield-laws, that specifically protect journalists from testifying in certain circumstances, and those laws often contain definitions of "journalist" or "reporter" or "media". In addition, the First Amendment provides a separate protection. In the statutory context, the courts are of course bound by the legislative definitions of who is a journalist. These definitions vary from state to state, but in most states depend upon some sort of professional affiliation. Under the First Amendment, however, courts have been much broader, focusing primarily on whether the person claiming the journalist's privilege had an intent to disseminate the information to the public **at the time s/he gathered it**. Bearing in mind the Supreme Court's admonition that "Freedom of the press is a 'fundamental personal right' which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. ... The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion,'" Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 (1972) (quoting Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450, 452 (1938)), courts have been unwilling to restrict press rights to the institutional press. Although the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question, "Who is a journalist?" in the context of the journalist's privilege (indeed, the fear that courts would have to deal with it was part of the majority's rationale for *not* granting the privilege in the seminal Branzburg case), many federal courts have addressed it, with varying results depending on the circumstances. See, e.g., In re Madden, 151 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998); Schoen v. Schoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1293-94 (9th Cir. 1993); Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987); Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433 (10th Cir. 1977); Blum v. Schlegel, 150 F.R.D. 42 (W.D.N.Y. 1993); Apicella v. McNeil Labs., Inc., 66 F.R.D. 78, 84-85 (E.D.N.Y. 1975). This is not to say that answering the question is simple in any give circumstance, but simply to note that courts have been doing it for a long time. One other point that should be clarified in light of this post is that, in every jurisdiction, the journalist's privilege is a *qualified* privilege and yields to the needs of evidence-gathering in many cases. No one, not even a New York Times reporter [I use the NYT rather than Wired because we know that some would question your own status as a journalist :-) ], gets the privilege in every circumstance. The person attempting to force a journalist to testify in the face of the privilege simply has to show that 1) the information they seek is relevant to the lawsuit for which they are seeking it; 2) their suit is not frivolous; and 3) they have exhausted all other reasonable means of obtaining the information (or some other similar variation of this three-part test). So, even having a broad definition of "journalist" does not completely open the door to an unfettered right to refuse to testify. -Anuj Anuj C. Desai University of Wisconsin Law School 975 Bascom Mall Madison, WI 53706 acdesai at facstaff.wisc.edu ********** From mpemble at isintegration.com Wed Aug 29 08:50:04 2001 From: mpemble at isintegration.com (Matthew Pemble) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:50:04 +0100 Subject: When anyone can publish, who's a journalist now? Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What about (fully recognised and published) part-time journalists? I have a monthly column in a trade magazine. It takes up about 2% of my working time. What protection should that material have and, considering that they are compiled using the same systems, how does that affect the 98% of my work which is as a security consultant? Actually, as I am a Brit, there is no protection at all but consider the hypothetical case. - - -- Matthew Pemble -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO40PG2rvMjpl5yaUEQKE1gCgzTnJqTTqx9cf/jpx71opj4B/CDIAoPeJ iI5aJcRTKlpp3Yq6XHYGL9JY =LMTe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ********** From frissell at panix.com Wed Aug 29 15:10:19 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:10:19 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010829094717.0311b6e0@brillig.panix.com> At 05:28 PM 8/28/01 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, >to "domestic terrorism". That makes political speech of the kind >which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders >of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that >time. Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for >this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every >fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most >radical two percent of the population, there are implications, >aren't there? I'm not involved in the retail pharmaceutical trade like most of those poor political prisoners. I wouldn't worry about discussing drug laws or the retail pharmaceutical trade, however. Do you have any evidence of a greater risk of imprisonment for discussions of the effect of technology in weakening national states? Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? I know that there has been an increase in punishments levied on the institutionalized populations of our many local institutions for the mentally challenged, but any parent who turns his children's body and brain over to a bureaucracy for training deserves what they get (though the children/victims do not). And since most of these punishments consist of removing the child from the institution in question, it's hard to see to see them as genuine punishments. They're actually helpful to the poor tykes. There hasn't been a statistically significant increase in imprisonment of adults (or non-institutionalized children) for thought crime. You might have argued the case in '92 and '93 when the Feds were investing various "compounds" of thought criminals around the country but the Fibbies got burned so bad that they snatched their hands back. Note that Weaver, Harris, and the Waco 11 were all acquitted of murder in the killing of federal agents. Real slap in the face to Main Justice. >For Tim: >Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things >that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's >interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call >someone *else* an agent provocateur. What's the "or worse"? The Ninth Circuit where Jeff would put Tim or whoever on trial has been very protective of the First. Note the Nuremberg Files case. That Court of Appeals has the most libertarian Appeals Court Judge (Kozinski) and there is loads circuit precedent for political speech protection. And all of the agitation and possible targeting of this list as well as the Libertarian Party of Washington would give anyone with half a brain yet another defense - selective prosecution. We have quite a bit of evidence of punishment for participating in a public forum. There's 9th circuit precedent for that defense too from back when the Hawaii US attorney prosecuted the Hawaii 4 for census resistance in 1970 after census resistance was advocated on KTRG radio. See US v. Watamull. CJ & JB are partially responsible for their problems. Unlike JB, for example, I'll never volunteer to the commission of a federal felony on the witness stand (mail tampering) that the Feds didn't even know about. There's such a thing as a special kind of stupid. JB plead out in his first case which didn't gain him anything except more trouble. Better not to plead in political cases. And CJ waived a jury. Most 1A defenses work only on appeal so the jury isn't that important but it can help. Both needed good appeal lawyers. Most of the rest of the possible targets will have good lawyers (or be good enough ones). I do think that there has been a bit too much cooperation with the Feds by members of this list. Two members have talked to Fibbies who showed up at their doors. They should have told them to get lost (as one always should). Think about it folks. The more time you spend in the presence of peace officers, the more information you give them for free whether by word, body language, or opportunities for visual inspection of your surroundings. Don't interact. You don't have to. And the several list members who have been subpoenaed could have done a little more to resist. When one receives a subpoena, the first thing you should do is throw it away. You can always wimp out later if you want but if you ignore the initial contact, they may go away. Make them do a little heavy lifting. Then if you are free to move, you should arrange to vacation overseas. If you have a job (reporter) that can be performed by Net and telephone, you should go to Canada where you can continue to work easily. If you can't move, you should at least wait for a second communication of some sort from the government. If you receive a second contact, you should point out that you will be a hostile witness and do nothing but verbally abuse them from the stand. You can prove your facility at this by verbally abusing them over the phone. If you are on the Right Coast and the court venue is on the Left Coast, you should immediately bundle up all your "government issued picture IDs" and burn them so you can't fly. Less easily, you could also try and weight 320 pounds so that carrying you will prove difficult for US Marshals. You might also try to be suffering from a potentially fatal disease so that threats from the Feds can be placed in the proper perspective. [Since, for now, we all *do* suffer from a potentially fatal disease (life), threats from the Feds should already be placed in a proper perspective.] Lastly, if you develop studious habits, you will discover that "prison is no punishment for the literate." Make *them* oppress you! Don't do it to yourself. They can't force you to speak. You have control of your voluntary muscles. Show a little backbone. DCF ---- "I brought up blankets, towels, toilet paper, Kleenex, aspirin, a bottle of rum and the .38" -- What my grandmother Louise Porter Frissell took to the evacuation assembly point at Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, on December 7th 1941. From frissell at panix.com Wed Aug 29 15:12:38 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:12:38 -0400 Subject: All Purpose Bombz Response Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010829101902.03269970@brillig.panix.com> Whenever I receive the following generic troll: >Please send me info on bombs...step by step instructions...Thanx I send the following response: The real good stuff isn't on the Net. Call your favorite OP book search person and get him to find you a copy of: Eissler, M. "A Handbook on Modern Explosives: A Practical Treatise, with Chapters on Explosives in Practical Applications" London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1897. 2nd, Enlarged, fair, illus., appendices, index. It'll set you back about $100 these days. ********** Just trying to upgrade the erudition of today's bombers. DCF ---- [1] And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. [3} ... but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel? [7] And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. 1 Chronicles 21. From database at elsitio.net.co Wed Aug 29 16:37:07 2001 From: database at elsitio.net.co (NITS) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:37:07 -0500 Subject: DIRECTORIO DE NITS Message-ID: <2733697-22001832923377440@elsitio.net.co> DIRECTORIO DE NIT�S - Base de datos con m�s de 427.000 registros de Empresas Colombianas con los campos de Nit, Raz�n Social, Direcci�n, Tel�fono, Ciudad, Departamento, CIIU, Actividad Empresarial. LA APLICACION que maneja la base de datos permite hacer b�squedas simples o complejas por todos los campos, agrupa diferentes tipos de b�squedas, prepara e imprime reportes y r�tulos. La aplicaci�n es totalmente aut�noma, es decir no necesita ning�n software adicional para su total desempe�o en Windows 95 o superior. PRESENTACION - Las bases de datos y la aplicaci�n se entregan en un CD, que permite la auto-instalaci�n. VALOR DEL CD - Col$250.000, los cuales se depositan en COLMENA en la cuenta de ahorros No. 0114500194215 a nombre de Directorio Nacional de Fax, copia de la consignaci�n con las instrucciones de entrega favor enviarlas al Fax 6178102/6179073 Bogot� y el CD y la factura ser�n enviados al d�a siguiente v�a Servientrega Nit�s - Tr. 51A No 123-01 Int. 10 - Tel. 6135184 - Fax 6178102/6179073 - database at elsitio.net.co - Bogot� Colombia Si desea ser removido de esta base de datos, responda a este mensaje indicando - remover - en el subject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 7083 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6823 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From a3495 at cotse.com Wed Aug 29 16:02:59 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:02:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fwd: Re: Tim May and anonymous flames Message-ID: Gary Jeffers wrote: >1. It is predictable that Tim May will be flammed. Ya think? >The FBI has a history of covertly sowing internal dissent in dissident >groups. As a leading Cypherpunk, May is an obvious target. "Target"? Anyone who is strong-willed and has a provocative writing style is going to get flamed here, period. If a person didn't enjoy the back-and- forth, they probably would have left a long time ago. It's the Tom-Turkey-and-a-bunch-of-Jakes phenomenon. >5. The flames will be seeded with clues to imply that a particular > Cypherpunk did them: distinctive syntax, mispellings, phrases, etc. Why give it any significance, then? Who cares, if it's just an anonymous pot shot? If people didn't endow it with credibility, it wouldn't have any impact at all. You turn your own imagination into your worst enemy. Don't be so gullible. 9. Anybody have any good defenses against this attack. Yeah, a top-secret SCI weapon known as "a filter file". More seriously, learn not to lose your head over unattributed insults and accusations. Whenever you find yourself tempted to reply to a "you poopy head" thread in kind, don't. Give it up, move on to something more rewarding. If every tiny little insult is enough to work you into a red hot lather, before you know it, the more cold-blooded are going to have you dancing like a galvanic frog. Which would you rather be? The choice is just a mouse click away. And if you're wasting your time bickering over nonsense, you have only yourself to blame. ~Faustine. From aimee.farr at pobox.com Wed Aug 29 17:48:55 2001 From: aimee.farr at pobox.com (Aimee Farr) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:48:55 -0500 Subject: True threat, Malicious Infosposure and "TNAs" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: How do federal officials fit into the more recent "true threat" analysis? See 18 U.S.C. Sects 115; United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1990). Obviously, I'm missing something. ~Aimee As for my mysterious disappearances -- I went to law school. Before that, I was in a convent. Before that, GCPP (Girl-Child Protection Program). From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 18:47:21 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:47:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Congratulations, you 'got it'... On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote: [much excellent stuff deleted] -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Wed Aug 29 20:56:54 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:56:54 -0700 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list In-Reply-To: <20010829231725.A24387@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <200108300400.f7U401f01468@slack.lne.com> On Wednesday, August 29, 2001, at 08:17 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:30:42PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: >> I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed to >> let >> convicts dig their own graves. > > Come, Aimee, I've said before that you are educable. You can do more > than post repetitive look-out-or-you'll-spend-time-in-prison replies, > right? I understand you may want to distance yourself from some folks, > but there may be other ways to do it. (Like not replying in the first > place.) > There seems to be a feeding frenzy of these "you're going to get in trouble!" posts. Several weeks ago, it was the "spoliation" thread, with Aimee assuring us that using certain technologies must be illegal. She could say why, in real terms (real as opposed to "maybe in the future"), but she implied we would be on thin ice. Oddly, Black Unicorn added a blizzard of cites he claimed showed that using some technologies, even long in advance of a any charges being filed or orders issued, would be "taunting Happy Fun Court." Apparently the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are made moot when Mr. Happy Fun Court decides he is "not amused" by people using encryption. Then we had Sandy Sandfort weighing in with his comment that some Cypherpunks are going to be in deep trouble with The Man. I think Sandy even forecast my death in a shootout. About the same time, Aimee chided _us_ for allowing the "help me make bombz, d00dz!" posts, showing no sense of who is likely posting these formulaic attempts at entrapment. When we told her we can't stop the AOLers and WebTV script kiddies and cops, she said that merely talking about explosives is taunting happy fun court. (One wonders what Aimee thinks should happen to the publishers of "Encyclopedia Britannica" for helping so my pyrotechnics hobbyists and freedom fighters. Not to mention CNN, for reporting in detail how to safely manufacture Oklahoma City-grade Astrolite.) And when we refused to stop the bombz posts to Aimee's satisfaction, she established her own "Bomb Law Reporter." Well, she'd _better_ be a Fed or a Fed helper, as she's connected herself and her newsletter out of Crawford and Waco to the construction of bombs. Ka-Boom! Next, we started seeing sissies like Ray Dillinger, er, "Bear," some sort of polyamoristic wuss-ninny from northern California, urging us to change the subject, to talk about the nurturing and children-friendly aspects of crypto. Fuck that. This is not some list for leftie greens and wuss-ninnies. Choate finds an ally in "Nomen Nescio," who bemoans the libertarian focus. And Aimee is still rambling, talking to her snails, apologizing, blithering, and hinting that she is so worried about out our dangerous ideas that she may have to talk to her SS buddies (her "prime rib") about the threat we pose to the New World Order. (Frankly, I think the odds are better than 50-50 that Aimee's sudden appearance on a bunch of liberty-oriented lists in late 2000, is not just because of her sudden interest in PGP, liberty, data havens, and Cypherpunks topics. Her clueless provocations on several of these lists match the M.O. of past list infiltrators. Whether she's actually a Fed, or is just borrowing the name of one of the Farrs from Waco or Caddo Mills (Hi, Gene Farr!) is not so important. She/he has ZERO, none, nada, nil Web presence prior to her/his sudden activism and encitement on several mailing lists in late 2000, around the time of the actions against Bell and the election. Maybe she's just a cut-out. Maybe she's just free-lancing for the Feds. Maybe she's just what she pretends to be, a twit who says she "represents the Establishment" when she's not talking to her snails. Sure is suspicious, though.) So, bottom line, we seem to have a new faction of about half a dozen singing variants of these songs: "But you can't say things like that!" "Say what you want, it's your funeral." "Do not taunt Happy Fun Court!" "I'm gonna _tell_!" "Tim May is a scary guy with a lot of guns who says he's going to defend his rights. I think you should raid his house and that of all of the other CACLs!" "There are limits to free speech." "Dig your own grave. My friends in Crawford are on to you." "Blacknet is an interesting idea, but only if it used by Steele and his CIA friends. Can you assure us it will not be used except for good uses, such as those by the CIA and DEA?" "I said I was gonna tell. I just did." "This list used to be about peace and brotherhood and community and bliss. Unless Saint Eric returns to save the list, I'm, like, _so_ outta here!" "Do not taunt Happy Fun Court!" --Tim May From terry.s at juno.com Wed Aug 29 18:16:17 2001 From: terry.s at juno.com (terry.s at juno.com) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:16:17 -0400 Subject: FC: When anyone can publish, who's a journalist now? Message-ID: Hi Declan! On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:01:30 -0400 Declan McCullagh writes: > Now the thought experiment is this: If the Profession of Jornalists > (PoJ) chooses to defend the proposition that anyone who wants to be > one automatically is one, then whether I am today a journalist or not is > a role decision that presumably I get to make, both to adopt the role > and to rescind the role, according to my whim. As the role has and > claims substantial privileges, what bargain would the PoJ offer to society > at large to justify, whether politically or morally or economically, > the extension to the many what had heretofore been special privileges > afforded to the PoJ few? In other words, if the right claimed is to > not tell law enforcement what one knows today in exchange for the > promise to eventually tell the entire public that part of it that can > be woven into a readable narrative, then the terms of the bargain > are at least clear. This sounds very much like an issue of who is clergy, protected by privilege of extending confidence and being exempt from compelled testimony. Unlike for physicians, and subject to many quirks lawyers, there can be no legitimate form of professional licensing for clergy, and likewise for journalists. In some religions there is a hierarchical structure of central authority which defines clergy and issues judicially reviewable credentials, or not (just as for press). In others, everyone is considered clergy, with only a distinction of who also obtains credentials from an IRS (of all agencies) sanctified supposed authority, or who functions as such in a professional as opposed to other role. More ethical states wrestle with legal ambiguity defining clergy, while other states try to pretend no one is clergy unless individuals license their religious rights with those problem states. The suggestion that a church with lay deacons acting as clergy cannot extend clerical legal status to other than professional employee clergy has been litigated, with findings that law cannot legally make such distinctions Constitutionally. The issues of a religion where many practitioners do not associate with an IRS approved corporate church, while most practitioners are acting as clergy to self if not also others, have not yet been resolved such that our legal system deals with current reality of legal fact. Journalistic privilege of confidence is very similar to that for clergy, with one set of issues that differ. Due to traditions of clerical counseling, clergy in many states are exempt from medical licensing laws regarding practice of Psychology. In turn, law in some states subjects clergy to compelled reporting of verified or suspected child and/or elderly abuse, as it does for doctors, teachers, social workers, etc. Clergy can also generally be sued for malpractice in such counseling if offered to others. The same issue exists with clergy as journalists of a supposed public service embedded in the profession as the historic rationalization for special legal status. At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, most states either still were or had recently been theocracies, and retained traits of such church control of state. Some of those survive today despite the 14th Amendment making that illegal as of 1868. Splinter religion clergy not associated with large corporate churches presumed to somehow offer quasi-theocratic government public services may parallel the direction the specialty press has gone. Are the millions of minor variants of thousands of documented religions now present in the USA akin to the nature of press to now narrowcast to special interest groups, rather than mostly be a key element of linking government to the populace broadly? In either case it's easy to argue that neither clergy or press are universally today serving their historic traditional roles in society. It's equally easy to argue they deserve the same Constitutional protections long standing, as the roles under which press or clergy exist, whether serving narrow or broad audiences in particular cases, are adapted to the exponentially increased diversity of today's populace. Terry ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- From search55 at arabia.com Wed Aug 29 21:27:02 2001 From: search55 at arabia.com (search55 at arabia.com) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:27:02 Subject: ADV: #1 Search Engine Rankings Message-ID: <410.292345.280509@arabia.com> Removal instructions below I saw your listing on the internet. I work for a company that specializes in getting clients web sites listed as close to the top of the major search engines as possible. Our fee is only $29.95 per month to submit your site at least twice a month to over 350 search engines and directories. To get started and put your web site in the fast lane, call our toll free number below. Sincerely, Brian Taylor 888-892-7537 To be removed call: 888-800-6339 X1377 From Jon.Beets at pacer.com Wed Aug 29 19:28:41 2001 From: Jon.Beets at pacer.com (Jon Beets) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:28:41 -0500 Subject: Legal Communication and Censorship.... Message-ID: <002401c130fb$7c0d3750$03d36b3f@pacer.com> I got a notice today from MOXON & KOBRIN Attorneys at Law representing the Church of Scientology International ("CSI") and Religious Technology Center ("RTC") stating infringement Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for a web site I currently mirror at http://xenu.pacer.com. It appears that some of the infringements may be true ( I will have to look to be sure) but what really gets me is the part quoted below.. They are saying since "Scientology", "Dianetics", "Hubbard" and "NOTs" are registered trademarks they cannot be used in metatags in a webpage... The restriction in use of words in a web page is just flat out censorship.. Absolutely ridiculous... It would be one thing if someone used the words to represent a business.. But I would think metatags at the very least would fall under the "Fair Use" clause. Quoted from email ___________________________________________________________ Lastly, you have placed the following federally registered trademarks belonging to RTC as metatags on your web page: "Scientology" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers: 1540928, 1342353,1329474, 1318717, 1036997, 0898018, 1755441; "Dianetics" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1347651, 1366410, 1432039; "Hubbard" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1318637, 1505349, 1546167, 1734728; and "NOTs" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1372473, 1307552, 1305409 (NOTS). ____________________________________________________________________________ End Quote Jon Beets Pacer Communications -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 4572 bytes Desc: not available URL: From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Thu Aug 30 00:37:29 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:37:29 -1000 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <20010829231725.A24387@cluebot.com> References: <20010828170005.AAA28450+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa . us> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010829213612.01a63bb0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 23:17 8/29/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:30:42PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: >> I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed >> to let convicts dig their own graves. > >Come, Aimee, I've said before that you are educable. You can do more >than post repetitive look-out-or-you'll-spend-time-in-prison replies, >right? I understand you may want to distance yourself from some folks, >but there may be other ways to do it. (Like not replying in the first >place.) I'd like her to reply with an honest answer regarding who (or what) it was that reminded her of this little tidbit, and of the other things she has been "reminded of" in the last day or two. Figure the odds. Reese From ryanarneson at home.com Wed Aug 29 18:47:21 2001 From: ryanarneson at home.com (Ryan Arneson) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: <20010829232933.C24387@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:56:12PM -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > > Didn't John Young note that a large portion of the waste removed from > > the London underground was human hair and skin flakes? Waste not want > > not. > > Sounds like a bit of an urban legend. > > -Declan > Someone tell the Travel Channel in that case, they did a story on the London underground, including the Underground (big U) and mentioned this very thing. It was called "Underground London" and unfortunately, the last day they list as an air date is 8/25. Seems they even have a name for the people who have to clean the human debris up...fluffers, if I recall correctly. Brings to mind another occupation that I won't detail here. -ryan From anonymous at anonymizer.com Wed Aug 29 21:59:00 2001 From: anonymous at anonymizer.com (Anonymous) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:59 -0700 Subject: I Love Tim May Message-ID: <200108300459.VAA01838@sirius.infonex.com> Tim - I've been off the list for a long time but return to find that I actually agree with a bunch of your posts. What the fuck happened? Aimee you have done wonders for love. Feds here put my bits into the vacuumed up collection of the day for later style and word adjacency analysis and detect the level of threat and stress in my writing, correlate it with other postings to determine the level of sympathy with listcrime freedom mongers and tag it with the unique ID of my processor put it in a vault for seven years. Meanwhile overhead drone aircraft videotape my town, then downtown they perform automated object trajectory analysis which spits out the outliers of Bayesian determiners of normalcy, flagging them as possible threatening activities while identifying the gait, odors, and timesequence behaviors of individuals who thought or did something not sanctioned by the Corporate Masters. So my Big Brethren, hey - I'm thinking of just how one might devastate a regional economy with just a minor disruption in its transportation capabilities. I don't wear Nike Shoes. So sue me. Arrest me. Fuck me. Some day some time Tim May may have writ: "There seems to be a feeding frenzy of these "you're going to get in trouble!" posts. Several weeks ago, it was the "spoliation" thread, with Aimee assuring us that using certain technologies must be illegal. She could say why, in real terms (real as opposed to "maybe in the future"), but she implied we would be on thin ice. Oddly, Black Unicorn added a blizzard of cites he claimed showed that using some technologies, even long in advance of a any charges being filed or orders issued, would be "taunting Happy Fun Court." Apparently the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are made moot when Mr. Happy Fun Court decides he is ..." From declan at well.com Wed Aug 29 19:20:03 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:20:03 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <929ebe296fd59116e69e973df3e02999@dizum.com>; from nobody@dizum.com on Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 08:20:12AM +0200 References: <929ebe296fd59116e69e973df3e02999@dizum.com> Message-ID: <20010829222003.A23860@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 08:20:12AM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: > be able to use the same tools against them. The problem is, we're > doing this for profit, right? We won't give the tools away once > the first generation uses them to take over. We should sell them to > the highest bidder. Methinks N.N. might want to learn the difference between proprietary tools and general technologies. -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 29 19:38:38 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:38:38 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: ; from bear@sonic.net on Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:28:24PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010829223838.B23860@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: > For Tim: > Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things > that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's > interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call > someone *else* an agent provocateur. I suspect Bear has good intentions and may even honestly believe this, but it is nevertheless misleading. Talking about the political implications of technologies -- and taking no actions! -- is protected by the full force of the First Amendment. Johnson got in trouble for allegedly making direct threats of physical violence. Bell is in jail for most of the next decade because he crossed state lines and showing up at homes of current or former federal agents. It is true that the Feds are monitoring cypherpunks closely, and it is also probably true that without the stalking charges, they may have found other charges to levy against Bell. It is also true that if you embrace AP-type concepts, they may pay closer attention to you. But even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference between speech and action. -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 29 19:38:48 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:38:48 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <22ebd9dc05f660c3951f13946e142bc0@dizum.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010829223731.02272740@mail.well.com> At 10:10 PM 8/28/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: >Apparently ability to spell "crypto" does not imply political sapiense beyond One should not attempt spelling flames -- almost always in poor taste, anyway --- if one does not know how to spell. Hint to NN: "Sapience." -Declan From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 21:02:41 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:02:41 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: <20010829232844.B24387@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Maybe, but it seems like offense just got a boost. Passive biodefenses > don't work against an active offense. Ablative, camouflage, and contact poison ones do. Nature is full of 'passive' defenses that are effective. Evolutionary Wars: A 3 Billion Year Arms Race The battle of species on land, at sea, and in the air C.K. Levy ISBN 0-7167-3775-2 > If sniffers start landing on your skin and taking a microscopic sample, then > they won't be trivial to defend against. Then you build nano-hunters. If the thing is mobile enough and smart enough then the technology is suitable to build a hunter-killer. Since you built it, and programmed it the security is quite high. Since the security is high the safety factor is high 'for you with respect to your technology'. This is another reason that 'reputation' is not as important as one would believe. Because of the requisite safety/security requirement of technology vetting nobody is going to believe a word that is said. The reason people will exist in transactions/relationships is as exchange brokers or personal interest. The ONLY(!!!) defence against a technological attack is a technological defence; passive/active, pro/re-active, etc. are digressions into minutea. They don't effect the fundamental balance of the situation. Attack/Defend. This is exactly why 'economics' and 'government' as we know it will cease to exist over the next couple of hundred years (maybe quicker). You will get your population of nano-bots when you're born from your parents. You'll inherit as a matter of course both a nano- and bio-technology when you become an adult. It will be keyed to you via a variety of mechanisms. They will get it from others in their 'chreche' (my 'zaibatsu') related by blood and long term personal relationships (note that this is not a driving force for inter-creche transfers). People will not have 'jobs' as we know them. Automation, bio-engineering, and intelligence technology will make that pointless. Exchages between chreche will be people and technology. People will have duties, obligations, responsibilities with respect to the business of the creche and inter-creche relations. Those relations will consist of almost nothing but technology/research/information transfers. As the technology increases the need for heirarchy with respect to survival and social behaviour limitations becomes less. Because of the (apparent) nature of technology growth two things will happen. The first is that individuals will be able to better fend for themselves. Consider an aggregate technology (psycho/digital/nano/bio-technology) that will allow a person to walk out into a field; filled with trees, grass, bushes, birds.... Program their nano-bots to create a steak. And within a couple of hours the field and its raw minerals and bio-mass are consumed, transformed, and delivered at your feet. A steaming steak sitting on a fine china plate; accompanied by a heap of gray goo piled next to it. Awaiting their next orders from your PDA...all in a silent, barren, stripped field. Weapons of mass destruction? You ain't seen nothing yet... What will keep some nutcase from killing everyone? Everyone will be providing both individual and community service with respect to building pro-active defences. You won't die from some Mujahadin bio-bug or nano-hunter-kill because it's against the law (and just exactly whos law might that be?), you'll do it because you've deployed(!) an active pre-emptive counter-measure technology. Probably both bio- and nano-. The thesis has been made that a critical point will be reached when countries become, as a matter of course, armed to such a point they can take on other countries 1-1. Now consider the sorts of societies that will be needed when that is person to person. Consider what it means when, as a result of this technology we must finally come to grips with the fact that the depravities of mankind are one of psychology and that the bad will always be with us. Consider what it means for things like 'trust', 'reputation', 'nation', 'independent', 'individual'. It is also a strong argument why freedom of speech with respect to taboo subjects like bombs is the wrong way to go. If everyone knows how to do it then nobody can hide their actions since they must collect and arrange resources. It also means that the number of potential observants goes way up. This increases the chances of early detection. The rational thing to do is teach people how to make bombs so they can recognize when some nutcase decides they want to make a bomb. The FBI should be teaching public classes. Jefferson said something about when a nation is threatened by the ignorance of the people, you don't change the law. You educate the people. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 29 23:05:59 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:05:59 -0700 Subject: Cypherpunks <> Crypto-Anarchist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010829230237.02fa2a00@idiom.com> Some Zen Poetry Choat's Noh Crypto Anarchist An empty message At 11:12 PM 08/29/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > -- > ____________________________________________________________________ > > natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato > summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks > > Matsuo Basho > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 21:12:08 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:12:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Cypherpunks <> Crypto-Anarchist Message-ID: -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Wed Aug 29 20:17:25 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:17:25 -0400 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: ; from aimee.farr@pobox.com on Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:30:42PM -0500 References: <20010828170005.AAA28450+3970112@timber20.timberland.lib.wa . us> Message-ID: <20010829231725.A24387@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:30:42PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote: > I would say something, but I've been reminded that you're supposed to let > convicts dig their own graves. Come, Aimee, I've said before that you are educable. You can do more than post repetitive look-out-or-you'll-spend-time-in-prison replies, right? I understand you may want to distance yourself from some folks, but there may be other ways to do it. (Like not replying in the first place.) -Declan From bill.stewart at pobox.com Wed Aug 29 23:25:01 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:25:01 -0700 Subject: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010829231620.02fa57a0@idiom.com> http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/08/29/stealth.computing/index.html http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/29/199205&mode=thread A group of researchers at Notre Dame figured out how to use the TCP Checksum calculations to get other computers to do number-crunching for them. "Below, we present an implementation of a parasitic computer using the checksum function. In order for this to occur, one needs to design a special message that coerces a target server into performing the desired computation." The article has the amount of great mathematical depth you'd expect from CNN :-) But it does say that the paper will be published in "Nature" this week. It's a really cool hack, though not especially efficient for real work. Of course, the Slashdot discussion follows typical structure - there's an interesting technical suggestion (ICMP checksums may be usable and are probably more efficient than TCP), some trolls and flamers, the obligatory "Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of those!" comment, and some speculation about the potential legalities and other uses for it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From declan at well.com Wed Aug 29 20:28:44 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:28:44 -0400 Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: ; from frissell@panix.com on Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 02:10:14PM -0400 References: <5.0.2.1.1.20010828083155.02f08930@idiom.com> Message-ID: <20010829232844.B24387@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 02:10:14PM -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Genetic sniffers, however can probably be defeated by devices that give > off clouds of genetically random human biological material. > > Offense and defense back and forth forever. Maybe, but it seems like offense just got a boost. Passive biodefenses don't work against an active offense. If sniffers start landing on your skin and taking a microscopic sample, then they won't be trivial to defend against. -Declan From declan at well.com Wed Aug 29 20:29:33 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:29:33 -0400 Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: <3B8C056C.3DD60CE2@lsil.com>; from mmotyka@lsil.com on Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:56:12PM -0700 References: <3B8C056C.3DD60CE2@lsil.com> Message-ID: <20010829232933.C24387@cluebot.com> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:56:12PM -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > Didn't John Young note that a large portion of the waste removed from > the London underground was human hair and skin flakes? Waste not want > not. Sounds like a bit of an urban legend. -Declan From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Wed Aug 29 21:35:36 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:35:36 -0500 Subject: SIG: NetSlaves (Hi-Tech Journalism) Message-ID: <3B8DC298.959BB77A@ssz.com> http://www.netslaves.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=005&action=display&num=998801687 -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com Wed Aug 29 20:44:30 2001 From: hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com (hotbizop at InfoGeneratorPRO.com) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:44:30 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <200108300344.XAA11186@www.infogeneratorpro.com> HAVE YOU EVER? . Been Over Charged For A Repair? ] Received a Speeding Ticket? ] Prepared A Will? Updated A Will? ] Bought or Sold a Home? ] Signed a Contract or Document you didn�t fully know what you were signing? ] Had a Child Custody Case? ] Been Treated Unfairly? ] Been Audited? ] Been harassed by creditors? ] Needed help collecting money owed to you? ] Needed a Legal opionion? ] Wanted to speak to an attorney but thought it would cost to much? If the answer is YES to any of the above then You NEED Our Service- Our Company is A: Has Over 1 Million Happy Members and we can help you! We Provide You & You�re Family, small or home based business with legal peace of mind! Think about it You probably already Own: Auto, Health, Dental & Life Insurance. Its Not a matter of IF you will need access to an attorney its only a matter of WHEN! Now it�s Time to Protect Your Family, small or home business and your legal rights with our service. Are you ready to have an entire LAW FIRM in your state working for you for pennies a day!!? For More Info Send an email to: ineedlegal at yahoo.com Put the word � legalinfo � in the subject heading. We will get you all the info for you to review and sign up for this great service. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Discover A Revolutionary Email Marketing System! http://www.infogeneratorpro.com/index.cgi?affiliate_id=12281 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Removal Instructions: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Remove yourself from THIS list: http://usub.net/boLBEFL _________________ OR _______________________ Remove yourself from ALL LISTS at InfoGeneratorPRO: http://usub.net/aoLBEFL Friend Subscribed at cypherpunks#ssz.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From declan at well.com Wed Aug 29 20:46:05 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:46:05 -0400 Subject: cypherpunks don't write code. In-Reply-To: ; from bear@sonic.net on Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 12:19:56PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010829234604.E24387@cluebot.com> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 12:19:56PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: > But now that certain types of code have been criminalized, > writing code counts as "something else". So the lesson > is, if you squawk on mailing lists, don't write code. If > you write code, don't squawk on mailing lists, especially > about the illegitimate uses to which criminals may put > your code. Writing certain types of code has long been criminalized. Look at the export regs that made posting code on a website a felony. Truly this is not new. Learn, adapt, consult a lawyer if you feel it's necessary and if you're in business and selling the stuff. But writing code and exercising your free speech rights on a mailing list are both (in general) protected activities. -Declan From amp at pobox.com Wed Aug 29 22:44:50 2001 From: amp at pobox.com (amp) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:44:50 -0500 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list In-Reply-To: <200108300400.f7U401f01468@slack.lne.com> References: <200108300400.f7U401f01468@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <0108300044500F.14123@www.zeugma.nu> The really funny thing about this is that if you search through for archives I'd be willing to bet you'd get a hundred hits or so for almost exactly the quote below. > "Tim May is a scary guy with a lot of guns who says he's going to defend > his rights. I've been on and off the list at various times (mostly off because the volume of this list eventually buries me in electrons) since about '95 or '96. Every once in a while this kind of statement is made. Hasn't happened yet. I've actually enjoying lurking for the past few days as it's been entertaining reading. FWIW, I'm with Tim on Aimee. She's a fed or closely enough related that she might as well be. -- TANSTAAFL, amp at pobox.com http://www.zeugma.nu/ Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic. From ppomes at ieee.org Thu Aug 30 00:55:36 2001 From: ppomes at ieee.org (Paul Pomes) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:55:36 -0700 Subject: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010829231620.02fa57a0@idiom.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010830005105.03922070@pop.earthlink.net> At 11:25 PM 8/29/01 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >A group of researchers at Notre Dame figured out how to use the >TCP Checksum calculations to get other computers to do number-crunching for them. > > "Below, we present an implementation of a parasitic computer > using the checksum function. In order for this to occur, > one needs to design a special message that coerces a target server > into performing the desired computation." > >The article has the amount of great mathematical depth you'd expect from CNN :-) >But it does say that the paper will be published in "Nature" this week. And the message in my mailbox immediately after the above was Nature's ToC including: Parasitic computing A-L BARABASI, V W FREEH, H JEONG & J B BROCKMAN http://www.nature.com/nlink/v412/n6850/abs/412894a0_fs.html Cheers, Paul Pomes From nobody at dizum.com Wed Aug 29 18:00:21 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 03:00:21 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Gil Hamilton (great nym!) wrote: > Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the > archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is > Tim's "Crypto Anarchist Manifesto". It's practically the charter. > See, for example, > http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto Equally relevant is the companion Cypherpunk's Manifesto, http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cypherpunk.manifesto, by Eric Hughes. Hughes was co-founder of the cypherpunks, with Tim May, although May has maintained a larger presence on the list. Eric Hughes' document is largely forgotten other than "Cypherpunks write code." But let us look at one of its concluding points: For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals. List subscribers may be surprised to see such sentiments from a cypherpunks founder. Privacy as a social contract? Depending on the cooperation of one's fellows in society? Seeking engagement with those who disagree? Where is the hatred, the aggression? Where is the applause for shooting policemen in the face, or killing innocent children to make a political point? Where is the disdain and thin-skinned, spiteful resentment at criticism? None of these are inherent characteristics of the cypherpunk philosophy. It is often forgotten that the cypherpunks movement is not primarily political or legal or even technical. It is moral. Cypherpunks have a vision of a morally superior society, and they seek to achieve it through technology. The cypherpunk world replaces coercion with cooperation. It provides the shield of anonymity against those who would offer violence and aggression. As we move into the information age, control of information is control of the individual. Thus, privacy, control of information about one's self, is freedom. And as Eric Hughes points out, cypherpunk technologies are ultimately based on social cooperation. By definition, anonymity is meaningless unless it is attained as part of a group. "People must come together and deploy these systems for the common good." If it sounds ironic or paradoxical that cypherpunks are motivated for the common good and bound by a social contract, you've been mixing with the wrong cypherpunks. Learn to see the cooperative philosophy behind the movement and you will come to a better understanding of its potential and its problems. Cypherpunks don't have to be misanthropes and curmudgeons. There is need for idealists, for visionaries, for those who want to make the world a better place than they found it, who want to improve the lives of all classes of people. Only in this way will the full potential of the cypherpunks philosophy be reached. === "Any message posted to cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer gets an automatic +2 on hit points, for it practices what it preaches." -- Anonymous From nobody at dizum.com Wed Aug 29 20:20:10 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:20:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Legal Communication and Censorship.... Message-ID: <884f55b430f483d8f42b26cfd9a6b194@dizum.com> "Jon Beets" (great nym!) writes: > what really gets me is the > part quoted below.. They are saying since "Scientology", "Dianetics", > "Hubbard" and "NOTs" are registered trademarks they cannot be used in > metatags in a webpage... The restriction in use of words in a web page > is just flat out censorship.. Absolutely ridiculous... It would be one > thing if someone used the words to represent a business.. But I would > think metatags at the very least would fall under the "Fair Use" clause. Take a look at http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ca/xml/01/04/23/010423calist.xml for an analysis of some of the cases involving metatags and trademarks. That article discusses Eli Lilly's lawsuit against a health food company that put Prozac in the metatags for their herbal antidepressant. In that case there was a possibility of confusion; a customer might have though that the product was somehow related to Prozac or officially sanctioned by Prozac's manufacturer. However: "Comparison advertising, whether in print or on a Web site, is one of the few permitted uses of another company's trademark," Bevilacqua says. If a company runs a legitimate comparison advertisement on its Web site, mention of a competitor's trademark in the metatags of the page with the comparison ad would be an acceptable use of the mark, Bevilacqua says. Your case would be a lot more similar to this. You are basically doing a comparison between scientology and, well, sanity. As long as it is clear that your site is ANTI scientology and is not endorsed in any way by the church, then there should be no possibility of confusion. From Jdean at lsuhsc.edu Thu Aug 30 05:00:12 2001 From: Jdean at lsuhsc.edu (Dean, James) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:00:12 -0500 Subject: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums Message-ID: <4DDCE8648ECDD11187910060979C535802BCD82C@lsumcbolivar.lsuhs c.edu> Don't fall for this. After registering at www.nature.com (supplying personal details), you find you'll have to pay to see the article. From drevil at sidereal.kz Thu Aug 30 00:18:14 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 30 Aug 2001 07:18:14 -0000 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list In-Reply-To: <200108300400.f7U401f01468@slack.lne.com> (message from Tim May on Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:56:54 -0700) References: <200108300400.f7U401f01468@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010830071814.9406.qmail@sidereal.kz> Sandy, Aimee, Unicorn, Dillinger, Choate, Nomen Nescio, what about me? Am I not worthy of this rant? From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 30 05:27:46 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:27:46 -0500 Subject: Lawyer Lessig raps new copyright laws - Tech News - CNET.com Message-ID: <3B8E3142.578BD24@ssz.com> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7004860.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Aug 29 22:41:51 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:41:51 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: <20010829232844.B24387@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Maybe, but it seems like offense just got a boost. Passive biodefenses > don't work against an active offense. If sniffers start landing on > your skin and taking a microscopic sample, then they won't be trivial > to defend against. Biology can't help leaking bits, it's riddled with multiple fingerprints. The only way to make sure is to rent a random telepresence box, the control flow being routed through realtime traffic remixers. By the time you have litte gadgets buzzing around who're after your DNA or volatile MHC fragments we'll surely have these. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From gbroiles at well.com Thu Aug 30 08:21:19 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:21:19 -0700 Subject: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums In-Reply-To: <4DDCE8648ECDD11187910060979C535802BCD82C@lsumcbolivar.lsuh s c.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010830081943.043bdd00@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 07:00 AM 8/30/2001 -0500, Dean, James wrote: >Don't fall for this. After registering at www.nature.com (supplying >personal details), you find you'll have to pay to see the article. See , including a .PDF of the article at . -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 30 06:39:05 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:39:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010829094717.0311b6e0@brillig.panix.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US > Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, author of "Unintended Consequences". www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39696d3b3c7b.htm -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 30 06:47:56 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:47:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Legal Communication and Censorship.... In-Reply-To: <002401c130fb$7c0d3750$03d36b3f@pacer.com> Message-ID: Welcome to the Operation Clambake Lawsuit Club :-) While I may be misreading what you wrote, it _appears_ that you are not really familiar with the Co$/RTC campaigns against Clambake et al... Google is your friend here: this has been litigated to death already. Of course, that won't stop them from doing it again, using the "we can outspend you" stratgey so common to lawyer larvae. Read up, aand then decide how seriously you feel about free speech. If you fight them you'll very likely win, but it's gonna cost you *dearly* (with lots more thn just mere money). Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org (also a Clambake Mirror) On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jon Beets wrote: > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:28:41 -0500 > From: Jon Beets > Reply-To: cypherpunks at ssz.com > To: cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com > Subject: CDR: Legal Communication and Censorship.... > > I got a notice today from MOXON & KOBRIN Attorneys at Law representing the Church of Scientology International ("CSI") and Religious Technology Center ("RTC") stating infringement Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for a web site I currently mirror at http://xenu.pacer.com. It appears that some of the infringements may be true ( I will have to look to be sure) but what really gets me is the part quoted below.. They are saying since "Scientology", "Dianetics", "Hubbard" and "NOTs" are registered trademarks they cannot be used in metatags in a webpage... The restriction in use of words in a web page is just flat out censorship.. Absolutely ridiculous... It would be one thing if someone used the words to represent a business.. But I would think metatags at the very least would fall under the "Fair Use" clause. > > Quoted from email > ___________________________________________________________ > > Lastly, you have placed the following federally registered trademarks belonging to RTC as metatags on your web page: > > "Scientology" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers: 1540928, 1342353,1329474, 1318717, 1036997, 0898018, 1755441; > > "Dianetics" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1347651, 1366410, 1432039; > > "Hubbard" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1318637, 1505349, 1546167, 1734728; and > > "NOTs" which is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1372473, 1307552, 1305409 (NOTS). > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > End Quote > > > > Jon Beets > Pacer Communications > -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From batman_svejk at fuckyou.co.uk Thu Aug 30 08:50:09 2001 From: batman_svejk at fuckyou.co.uk (Batman Svejk) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:50:09 -0700 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list Message-ID: <200108301550.IAA21759@mail18.bigmailbox.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 09:01:59 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:01:59 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" Message-ID: <200108301605.f7UG50f04238@slack.lne.com> This report says the U.S. Gov't. has plans to make "SafeWeb," the Web proxy company it helped fund through the CIA, available to Chinese citizens who want to bypass their government's censorship. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010830/wr/tech_china_internet_report_dc_1. html (I can already hear Aimee moaning about this anarchic undermining of the official Chinese government...until she realizes it has been blessed by a "legitimate" organ of the government.) So, what happens when Iran decides to finance systems in the U.S. to bypass U.S.G. censorship (e.g., of talk by freedom fighters)? Or when Denmark finances a system to bypass crackdowns on teen erotica in the U.S.? And so on. Here's a brief excerpt: Thursday August 30 3:23 AM ET U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship -NYT NEW YORK (Reuters) - United States government agencies hope to finance an American-based computer network designed to thwart attempts by the Chinese government to censor the World Wide Web for users in China, the New York Times reported in its online edition on Thursday. .... According to the report, the agency is in advanced discussions with Safeweb, a small company based in Emeryville, California, which has received financing from the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites), In-Q-Tel. The discussions were confirmed by parties on both sides, the newspaper said. Safeweb currently runs its own worldwide network of about 100 privacy servers -- computers that help disguise what Web sites a user is seeking to view -- which are popular with users in China, according to the report. The newspaper said the privacy servers have been a continuing target for the Chinese government, which has blocked most of them in recent weeks. From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 09:10:14 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:10:14 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108301613.f7UGDGf04276@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 06:39 AM, measl at mfn.org wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote: > >> Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the >> US >> Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? > > Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, author of "Unintended > Consequences". > > www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39696d3b3c7b.htm > Thanks for the cite! It shows how far down the path to destroying even the First Article of the Bill of Rights we have gone. Several cases of BATF harassment, even an attempt to recruit John Ross' ex-wife to help put him away. Thanks again. P.S. I see you have copied Ray Dillinger in the cc: field (which I have blanked in this reply, as is my custom). Be advised that Ray Dillinger has covered his ears and doesn't want to hear about this kind of icky stuff. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 09:17:35 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:17:35 -0700 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list In-Reply-To: <200108301550.IAA21759@mail18.bigmailbox.com> Message-ID: <200108301619.f7UGJef04316@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 08:50 AM, Batman Svejk wrote: >> Next, we started seeing sissies like Ray Dillinger, er, "Bear," some >> sort of polyamoristic wuss-ninny from northern California, urging us to >> change the subject, to talk about the nurturing and children-friendly >> aspects of crypto. Fuck that. This is not some list for leftie greens >> and wuss-ninnies. > > Not all of the leftie greens object to discussions on this list, > but if this (your?) list is not for greens, maybe those with different > political views than your own should go away? If you think you should go away because I insult lefty greens, then, yes, you should go away. > > Maybe you'd like a law that makes it illegal to troll. Heh. > > Get a clue. --Tim May From jya at pipeline.com Thu Aug 30 09:20:48 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:20:48 -0700 Subject: Bell Testimony Day 2 Message-ID: <200108301328.JAA24334@hall.mail.mindspring.net> Day 2: http://cryptome.org/jdb040901-2.htm Completion of direct questioning by Robert Leen, Jim's many-times-fired attorney, and cross-examination by Robb London. Two cpunks are mentioned by Jim by name, with glowingly admirable death kisses. But he also kisses Leen (says Leen threatened to kill him two days before), London, Tanner, cpunk Jeff, another J and wife B, CIA's Bend OR Phantom, a phantom Phantom, The Super-Dirty Narc, Innocent Victim Agent No. 2, the Laura Raider of his mother's fireplace ashes, a police-asslick Reporter, and ... what can be said of Jim that he can't yodel better on the stand. Tanner admonished London for leaving the podium during questioning to get docs. "Stop it." London apologized for asking Jim too many questions without waiting for answers. "I'll stop it." Leen asked to be relieved as defense attorney, Tanner: "Denied. Leen asked for a psycho exam of Jim, Tanner denied. Jim tried to invoke his 5th Amendment rights, Tanner denied: "answer the question." Jim asked for legal representation, crying IANAL, Tanner denied: "answer." Jim admitted he stole mail and opened it, and burned it in his mother's fireplace. Jim admitted he sent a fax across state lines, and went across state lines in pursuit of homebases of official pukes. London affirmed all Jim's prison phone calls were monitored, that cpuke Jeff monitors cpunks -- maybe it was Jim who said the latter when he testified that that posting to cpunks was how he notified the opukes what he intended. Etc. From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 30 09:27:43 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:27:43 -0700 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list In-Reply-To: <200108300400.f7U401f01468@slack.lne.com> References: <20010829231725.A24387@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010830092743.0084d180@pop.sprynet.com> At 08:56 PM 8/29/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >"Blacknet is an interesting idea, but only if it used by Steele and his >CIA friends. Can you assure us it will not be used except for good uses, >such as those by the CIA and DEA?" > "We develop the tecnology. The policy and how you implement them is not my province." ---Jonathon Philips, mgr DARPA Human ID at a Distance Program Tech Review Sept 01 p 63 "Big Brother Logs On" ......... Additional case studies are needed, however, to determine which traits of chemical and biological terrorists might help identify them because charisma, paranoia, and grandiosity are alo found to varying degreees among, for example, leaders of political parties, large corporations, and academic depts. --John T Finn, _Science_ v 289 1 sept 2000 From bob at black.org Thu Aug 30 09:39:18 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:39:18 -0700 Subject: BATF, AP, Unintended Consequences author harassment Message-ID: <3B8E6C35.E61EA71F@black.org> At 08:39 AM 8/30/01 -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: >> Is Tom Clancy going to spend much time in stir for machine gunning the US >> Congress at the end of Debt of Honor? >Possibly: see the campaign to put away John Ross, author of "Unintended >Consequences". > www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39696d3b3c7b.htm Wherein it says: For example, in 1997 the book's publisher became aware that individuals purporting to be BATF agents had threatened vendors of the book in at least three different states with "problems" if they did not cease their sales of the book. A full-page ad in Shotgun News offering a $10,000 reward for the identity of these individuals put a stop to that particular business. Wouldn't this be evidence supporting AP? From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 09:39:45 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:39:45 -0700 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list In-Reply-To: <20010830071814.9406.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <200108301641.f7UGfmf04496@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:18 AM, Dr. Evil wrote: > Sandy, Aimee, Unicorn, Dillinger, Choate, Nomen Nescio, what about me? > Am I not worthy of this rant? > You've left no impression on me. And I expect you are just another of the anonymous or pseudonymous ranters, maybe the same one recently using "Nomen Nescio" or "A Melon." Dismissible, in other words. --Tim May From honig at sprynet.com Thu Aug 30 09:44:43 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:44:43 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <200108301605.f7UG50f04238@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010830094443.00865100@pop.sprynet.com> At 09:01 AM 8/30/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >This report says the U.S. Gov't. has plans to make "SafeWeb," the Web >proxy company it helped fund through the CIA, available to Chinese >citizens who want to bypass their government's censorship. > >So, what happens when Iran decides to finance systems in the U.S. to >bypass U.S.G. censorship (e.g., of talk by freedom fighters)? Or when >Denmark finances a system to bypass crackdowns on teen erotica in the >U.S.? And so on. Yep. Note that its not all altruism/subversion; its also intelligence, the USG gets to monitor what the Chinese middle class are really interested in. Beyond what the spooks already know. From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 09:50:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:50:26 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <200108260458.f7Q4wdf11683@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B8E0C62.2102.3E4C20@localhost> -- On 27 Aug 2001, at 16:00, Aimee Farr wrote: > Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason, > espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery > of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of > wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or > retaliating against Federal officials, a transactional > environment for nuclear and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms > trafficking....sweet spots. *shakes head* Sounds good to me. I am sure it will sound pretty good to President Bush if the primary targets are in Sudan or Borneo, rather than the target being Bush. And it will probably sound pretty good to some guy in Sudan if the primary target is Bush. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cP6zSfn46m6Tcs5LHfHssOmejDBq3DjqNkpEEtbY 43ILLkFOVdn0istQ5ydYLv94EZa/2p9G2WsMUao2i From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 09:50:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:50:26 -0700 Subject: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <200108280315.f7S3FAf21092@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <3B8E0C62.7666.3E4C2A@localhost> -- On 27 Aug 2001, at 23:22, Aimee Farr wrote: > Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in > light of world events, I don't see how you could call ME a > provocateur. My jibe was good-natured. You keep posting the > equivalent of classified ads. I know who wants this shit now, > and it's not "little bad men." The main world events that I have noticed is that President Bush has deballed the world gun control treaty, in part because it would hinder aid to revolutionary movements that have interests in common with the US, and that Bush is making unkind noises about the world treaty against tax havens and financial secrecy, in part because it would give the EEC too much control over international money flows. The state has always been repressive -- and different states have always disagreed strongly over what needs to be repressed. In 1376 the Holy Roman Church declared itself supreme in all matters of thought, and declared that any thinking not first approved and authorized in advanced by the church, and conducted in proper church channels, was heresy and/or witchcraft punishable by burning at the stake. However, under the original treaty between Pope and holy roman empire, any such burnings required both the Pope's judges and the King's goons (oversimplification, but that is essense of it). Since Pope and King were usually trying to kill each other, freedom survived, though not easily. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ulrWnHbYmYLr1ALq5yaAlnuwr5SRSzH8gTSgtzmj 4dYLsf/2UwXTPBn4+ZQRxpjVyJJWsQWAYxEuZEWiN From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 09:50:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:50:26 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B8E0C62.15120.3E4C0C@localhost> -- On 27 Aug 2001, at 21:40, Nomen Nescio wrote: > "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much > money do they have? More importantly, how much are they > willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market > technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough. Freedom fighters are generally funded by expatriates resident in sympathetic foreign countries. These expatriates need C3 equipment to ensure that their money is not being embezzled or misused. By and large they are not using it, and should be. > "Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts." Financial > privacy is in fact potentially big business, but let's face it, > most of the customers today are not Jews fearing confiscation > by anti-semitic governments. That's not in the cards. Most of > the money will be tainted I find this unlikely. The powerful confiscate from the vulnerable because they want the money, not because the vulnerable are sinners deserving to have their money confiscated. It is always loudly proclaimed that the money is tainted. When the Swiss banks were receiving the money from jews it was supposedly tainted because it came from jews. Later it was supposedly tainted because it came from nazis. Any money is tainted when someone else wants it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG N9AHhvoqlS9Irm/IDeEE6I1kYHYUm+CQGmeXPy82 44sVXA0FdW2m4055Ed20ew+iE84uYRYERsDpl8PjJ From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 09:50:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:50:26 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108261749.f7QHn0f14646@slack.lne.com> References: <200108261612.f7QGC2U93494@mailserver1.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <3B8E0C62.24058.3E4C16@localhost> -- On 26 Aug 2001, at 10:46, Tim May wrote: > Anyway, it is not easy to create a public company, a public > nexus of attack, and then deploy systems which target that > high-value sweet spot. The real bankers and the regulators > won't allow such things into the official banking system. (Why > do people think the banking system will embrace "digital bearer > bonds" having untraceability features when true bearer bonds > were eliminated years ago?) I think the safest convenient path to development is to develop untraceable cash in the US with restrictions on any large transfers. Then, once the technology is working, set up a complete new company in a jurisdiction such as Nauru or Antigua which allows bearer instruments of large value. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG IfH9fDFYT0gsZzF8W1c6SeYfXhieAuGmfGuJbr3e 4HmU02MVm3Sjt7wzdrSI7p7LHwBjt/+HG3dwDeuYD From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 10:02:54 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:02:54 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010830094443.00865100@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <200108301704.f7UH4tf04912@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 09:44 AM, David Honig wrote: > At 09:01 AM 8/30/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >> This report says the U.S. Gov't. has plans to make "SafeWeb," the Web >> proxy company it helped fund through the CIA, available to Chinese >> citizens who want to bypass their government's censorship. >> >> So, what happens when Iran decides to finance systems in the U.S. to >> bypass U.S.G. censorship (e.g., of talk by freedom fighters)? Or when >> Denmark finances a system to bypass crackdowns on teen erotica in the >> U.S.? And so on. > > Yep. > > Note that its not all altruism/subversion; its also intelligence, the > USG gets to monitor what the Chinese middle class are really interested > in. > > Beyond what the spooks already know. And I have to wonder just how safe/untraceable SafeWeb is. If it's safe enough to protect Chinese dissidents against torture and execution, then it's safe enough to protect freedom fighters in America, Ireland, and ZOG-Occupied Palestine. On the other hand, maybe it's got a "Chinese bit," a Chinese trap door. After all, if it were truly safe/untraceable, with good crypto, then that same system could and would be used by Chinese apparatchniks (whatever the spelling) and PLA officers. The CIA wouldn't want that, now would they? Still, the "approval" of the U.S. Government of tools for freedom fighters should push the public debate a bit. Twits who argue that there are never any reasons for "hiding" see the reasons in front of them, laid out by the U.S.G. itself. (Not that any of this is at all new to anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes thinking about the issue. The history of man is the history of groups oppressing other groups, of satraps raping their people, of purges of entire ethnic groups. Anyone repeating the "what have you got to hide?" canard is not worth convincing.) This relates to the sweet spot argument. The "dollar ghetto" I talked about, where privacy providers yammer about protecting Web surfers from Pillsbury tracking their cookie preferences with cookies, so to speak, is just not very interesting or lucrative. Protecting Chinese dissidents from arrest and execution is pretty far to the right on that X-axis of "Value of Untraceability" I outlined. This was the original goal of ZKS, of course. (And of course of networks of digital mixes, of which the early Cypherpunks remailers were just an experimental instance of.) Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, terrorist-grade, etc. --Tim May From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 10:03:01 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:03:01 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827181615.023f0430@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com > Message-ID: <3B8E0F55.11310.49D1EA@localhost> -- Reese > > You [Aimee Farr]are entirely too smug and happy, at the > > thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving > > privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo. Aimee Farr > That is not my attitude at all, Reese. It is your attitude. You keep telling us privacy is illegal. Most highly profitable uses of privacy are illegal somewhere, but they are never illegal everywhere. If you had your way we would all be obeying all US law, including those seldom or never enforced, or only enforced against black people and political subversives, all french laws, all Iranian laws, etc. Concerning your example of the IRA -- I recollect that for a long time the US government allowed IRA fundraising, and use of the US banking system for transfers to the IRA. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG LnyQwbLjSabEa0Lh4Qp314B6OXVNHjgvV/V5Hg5j 4ZtCxKVTkBd+heS8NdJoqew13kDVoqFasM3tTo/Qb From nobody at remailer.privacy.at Thu Aug 30 01:06:03 2001 From: nobody at remailer.privacy.at (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:06:03 +0200 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Anonymous wrote: > The cypherpunk world replaces coercion with cooperation. It > provides the shield of anonymity against those who would offer > violence and aggression. As we move into the information age, > control of information is control of the individual. Thus, privacy, > control of information about one's self, is freedom. > > And as Eric Hughes points out, cypherpunk technologies are > ultimately based on social cooperation. By definition, anonymity is > meaningless unless it is attained as part of a group. "People must > come together and deploy these systems for the common good." Yes! The pacificism which underlies most cypherpunk ideas has always been attractive. It's cheaper to be hard to track than to have to defend yourself. (Maybe this is why so many animals use camouflage.) > "Any message posted to cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer gets an > automatic +2 on hit points, for it practices what it preaches." > -- Anonymous Sing it, brother, sing it! From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 10:08:01 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:08:01 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8E0C62.15120.3E4C0C@localhost> Message-ID: <200108301710.f7UHA7f04961@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 09:50 AM, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > -- > On 27 Aug 2001, at 21:40, Nomen Nescio wrote: >> "Freedom fighters in communist-controlled regimes." How much >> money do they have? More importantly, how much are they >> willing and able to spend on anonymity/privacy/black-market >> technologies? These guys aren't rolling in dough. > > Freedom fighters are generally funded by expatriates resident in > sympathetic foreign countries. These expatriates need C3 > equipment to ensure that their money is not being embezzled or > misused. By and large they are not using it, and should be. > >> "Jews hiding their assets in Swiss bank accounts." Financial >> privacy is in fact potentially big business, but let's face it, >> most of the customers today are not Jews fearing confiscation >> by anti-semitic governments. That's not in the cards. Most of >> the money will be tainted > > I find this unlikely. The powerful confiscate from the > vulnerable because they want the money, not because the > vulnerable are sinners deserving to have their money confiscated. > > It is always loudly proclaimed that the money is tainted. When > the Swiss banks were receiving the money from jews it was > supposedly tainted because it came from jews. Later it was > supposedly tainted because it came from nazis. Any money is > tainted when someone else wants it. And in both of these examples I gave, "Nomen Nescio" took a literal reading of the examples. "But Ireland is not a communist regime!" "But they are not Jews!" Examples, like the half dozen I gave, are designed to convey to the reader the range of uses, needs, and justifications. The specific stands for the general. Both Nomen and Aimee are remarkably block-headed in seeing the big picture. --Tim May From declan at well.com Thu Aug 30 07:33:06 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:33:06 -0400 Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: References: <20010829232933.C24387@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010830103051.02226670@mail.well.com> It makes sense that human debris would be a portion of the waste removed, but compared to food items, dead rats, discarded trash and newspapers, it strikes me that it would not be an especially large portion. --Declan At 09:47 PM 8/29/01 -0400, Ryan Arneson wrote: >Someone tell the Travel Channel in that case, they did a story on the >London underground, including the Underground (big U) and mentioned this >very thing. It was called "Underground London" and unfortunately, the last >day they list as an air date is 8/25. > >Seems they even have a name for the people who have to clean the human >debris up...fluffers, if I recall correctly. Brings to mind another >occupation that I won't detail here. From keyser-soze at hushmail.com Thu Aug 30 10:48:21 2001 From: keyser-soze at hushmail.com (keyser-soze at hushmail.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:48:21 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <200108301748.f7UHmLF17934@mailserver1.hushmail.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 696 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 11:36:56 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:36:56 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <20010830140758.A11864@weathership.homeport.org> Message-ID: <200108301839.f7UIduf05548@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 11:07 AM, Adam Shostack wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote: > | Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is > | difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also > | pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, > | terrorist-grade, etc. > > I think a larger problem is that we don't know how to build it. Once > we build it, we may be able to market it. But when you look at > building something for dissidents, you realize that you have very high > stealth requirements, since using such software is likely to subject > its users to rubber-hose, and harsher forms of attack. A quibble, but I would separate the stego aspect from the untraceability aspect. It is true that in certain regime--China, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.--sending and receiving encrypted packets will be ipso facto proof of guilt or at least grounds for hauling in for torture. Even stego in the ad banners, sound files, images, etc. will be problematic. This is the stego, or stealth, topic we all know about. (Aimee and Ray, cover your ears.) In regimes where something akin to the First Amendment provides unassailable protection against sending and receiving bits in a form not necessarily readable by snoops, providing untraceability is enough. Ignoring the stego/stealth side for this discussion, I certainly hope you at ZKS know how to build a dissident-grade untraceability system. If not, hard to see why 200 employees were hired and $60 million or so was raised. If ZKS colonizes the ghetto of "stopping Pillsbury from using cookies to track cookie preferences," then they will never make much money at all. In my opinion. Just too close to the low value of the graph. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 12:14:01 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:14:01 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <200108301839.f7UIduf05548@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <200108301916.f7UJGCf05929@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 11:36 AM, Tim May wrote: > In regimes where something akin to the First Amendment provides > unassailable protection against sending and receiving bits in a form > not necessarily readable by snoops, providing untraceability is enough. I meant either "unassailable protection against outlawing sending and receiving bits..." or "unassailable protection for sending and receving bits..." (Caught in the middle of an edit...) --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 12:18:22 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:18:22 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <20010830151659.A12544@weathership.homeport.org> Message-ID: <200108301920.f7UJKPf05979@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:16 PM, Adam Shostack wrote: > As far as your opinions of our business, well, I'm really uninterested > in getting into a pissing match with you. The reality is that > customers and investors give us money tp produce privacy tools, and > they, not you, are the ones I need to keep happy. > I was being quite calm was not "getting into a pissing match." If you react to comments about ZKS by saying people are pissing on you, I'd call you overly sensitive. And I certainly recall you yourself commenting on products from RSA and many other companies. --Tim May From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 30 12:41:41 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:41:41 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" Message-ID: <3B8E96F5.D81064D1@lsil.com> "Faustine" wrote : >Adam wrote: >On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote: >| Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is >| difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also >| pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, >| terrorist-grade, etc. > >>I think a larger problem is that we don't know how to build it. > >And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are >willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their >betas to the NSA, you never will. > >~Faustine. > Holy faulty logic Batman! This has to be one of the more doofy things I've heard. It's right up there with the EMI Grounding Strap thread. What're you going to do, sell a product in CompUSA with instructions to the cashiers that the NSA is not allowed to buy it? If the NSA is willing to pay for some software that's great. They've got as much right to buy it as anyone else. As long as they obey the law! and don't reverse engineer it, let them share in financing further development. I would find it more relevant to know which commercial product designs have been influenced by which non-commercial agencies. oy g'vay ( sp? ) Mike From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 30 12:42:24 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:42:24 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: <3B8E9720.76A8EBBE@lsil.com> Declan McCullagh wrote : >On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:28:24PM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote: >> For Tim: >> Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things >> that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's >> interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call >> someone *else* an agent provocateur. > >I suspect Bear has good intentions and may even honestly believe this, >but it is nevertheless misleading. > >Talking about the political implications of technologies -- and taking >no actions! -- is protected by the full force of the First Amendment. > >Johnson got in trouble for allegedly making direct threats of physical >violence. Bell is in jail for most of the next decade because he >crossed state lines and showing up at homes of current or former >federal agents. > >It is true that the Feds are monitoring cypherpunks closely, and it is >also probably true that without the stalking charges, they may have >found other charges to levy against Bell. It is also true that if you >embrace AP-type concepts, they may pay closer attention to you. But >even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference >between speech and action. > >-Declan > Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could constitute intent? Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating code? Should the political speech and coding action be separated? Is participating in both risky? I consider code to be publishing and speech but look at some of the recent GRUsa activity that addresses that issue. Get ready for "to code is to act." Whoops, it's here. Just title your application "Espionage Communications Suite with Government Overthrow Features" and package the speech and the act up nice and neat for the GRU. This can't really be the case, can it? Mike This little gizmo is not new but I like it and it's only $30 at an AT&T Wireless store. It looks like it would be a nice companion ( assuming one could make a very tiny uP-based adapter ) for an iPaq. I find those folding kybs to be ugly. http://www.ericsson.com/infocenter/news/The_Chatboard.html From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 30 10:47:56 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:47:56 -0500 Subject: Denial and the Ravaging of Cyberspace Message-ID: <3B8E7C4C.9FC617B9@ssz.com> http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0824-10.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 12:49:55 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:49:55 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8E9720.76A8EBBE@lsil.com> Message-ID: <200108301952.f7UJqEf06261@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:42 PM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the > hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent > overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could > constitute intent? Before going further, let's examine your "could constitute intent" point. Do you know of any prosecutions, successful or not, of groups who "played soldier in the woods"? Assuming, of course, that the prosecutions were not for weapons law violations, trespassing, hunting out of season, possession of illegal explosives, noise violations, etc. If you know of any such cases, I would like to hear about them. Note, by the way, that the Aryan Nation(s) routinely does as you say, i.e., they practice in the woods, but the only thing that they have been charged (as individuals or as an organization) were connected with actual crimes (the murder of radio talk show host Alan Berg in Denver, a couple of bank robberies) or political thoughtcrimes involving supposed harassment (a woman who claims she was "chased and terrorized" by AN thugs after driving past their compound several times. Do you know of any actual cases where this confluence to "create intent" (not even clear what that means in this context, though) was claimed? > Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating > the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating > code? Should the political speech and coding action be separated? Is > participating in both risky? I consider code to be publishing and speech > but look at some of the recent GRUsa activity that addresses that issue. Assuming your hypo, there is little protection in the "Alice talks, Bob codes" solution, if Alice and Bob associate. For a conspiracy charge, the fact that some talk and some build things is not important. > > Get ready for "to code is to act." Whoops, it's here. Just title your > application "Espionage Communications Suite with Government Overthrow > Features" and package the speech and the act up nice and neat for the > GRU. > > This can't really be the case, can it? No, it can't. --Tim May From adam at homeport.org Thu Aug 30 10:34:10 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:34:10 -0400 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010830092743.0084d180@pop.sprynet.com> References: <20010829231725.A24387@cluebot.com> <200108300400.f7U401f01468@slack.lne.com> <3.0.6.32.20010830092743.0084d180@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <20010830133409.A11610@weathership.homeport.org> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:27:43AM -0700, David Honig wrote: | "We develop the tecnology. The policy and how you implement them | is not my province." ---Jonathon Philips, | mgr DARPA Human ID at a Distance Program | Tech Review Sept 01 p 63 "Big Brother Logs On" Its a good thing DARPA doesn't believe in professional responsibility. "As an ACM member I will.. Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities." (http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From adam at homeport.org Thu Aug 30 11:07:58 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:07:58 -0400 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <200108301704.f7UH4tf04912@slack.lne.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010830094443.00865100@pop.sprynet.com> <200108301704.f7UH4tf04912@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010830140758.A11864@weathership.homeport.org> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote: | Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is | difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also | pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, | terrorist-grade, etc. I think a larger problem is that we don't know how to build it. Once we build it, we may be able to market it. But when you look at building something for dissidents, you realize that you have very high stealth requirements, since using such software is likely to subject its users to rubber-hose, and harsher forms of attack. Productizing stealth systems is hard; the adversaries can take them apart and find discriminators. Not productizing stealth systems is risky; your custom systems are likely to be of different strengths, and the weak ones will provide your adversaries with training on how to attack the hard ones, as well as insight into how you're producing them. (See for example, Enigma, increasing rotors; One-time-pad, Soviet typewriters; British bingo cages.) Also worth reading is "Traffic Analysis Attacks and Trade-Offs in Anonymity Providing Systems" by Back, Muller and Stiglic, at http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~stiglic/publications.html Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 30 14:24:32 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:24:32 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot References: <3B8E9720.76A8EBBE@lsil.com> <20010830171652.A9884@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <3B8EAF10.3BE2C85D@lsil.com> Declan McCullagh wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:42:24PM -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > > Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the > > hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent > > overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could > > constitute intent? Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating > > the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating > > code? Should the political speech and coding action be separated? Is > > participating in both risky? I consider code to be publishing and speech > > but look at some of the recent GRUsa activity that addresses that issue. > > Can you get put in jail for writing code? Sure. Just ask Dmitry Sklyarov. > Or read the old crypto regs. Or write a bot that posts child porn and > start it going. Lots of ways to run afoul of the law -- and that's in > the U.S., where we may even be a bit more liberal about such things, > and where some circuits even believe source code is free speech. > > But it does not logically follow that just because you code something, > such as an anonymous mix or similar system, that you have broken the > law. In fact, you probably haven't. > > -Declan > Agreed, but the parallel is noticeable. Mike From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 30 11:41:08 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" Message-ID: Tim wrote: >And I have to wonder just how safe/untraceable SafeWeb is. If it's safe >enough to protect Chinese dissidents against torture and execution, then >it's safe enough to protect freedom fighters in America, Ireland, and >ZOG-Occupied Palestine. <--(??) >On the other hand, maybe it's got a "Chinese bit," a Chinese trap door. >After all, if it were truly safe/untraceable, with good crypto, then >that same system could and would be used by Chinese apparatchniks >(whatever the spelling) and PLA officers. The CIA wouldn't want that, >now would they? I've heard that In-Q-Tel found a lot of technology they were interested in acquiring that they had to turn down solely because a foreigner was involved in developing it. Just as vigilant as they ever were, "private venture capital" notwithstanding. Of course it has a trap door, that's probably the whole point of getting it over there in the first place. And by the way, if you're going to question SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge for selling a boatload of the Freedom beta to the NSA in 1999 as well. What did they think they wanted it for, farting around on Usenet? I bet they had that sucker reverse-engineered and compromised in two minutes flat. Stands to reason. I wouldn't trust either of them with anything significant. ~Faustine. From join at sshow.co.kr Wed Aug 29 22:43:42 2001 From: join at sshow.co.kr (join at sshow.co.kr) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:43:42 +0900 Subject: [] ִ ι۱ ߼ Ѱ 帳ϴ. Message-ID: <200108300821.BAA23009@toad.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 12933 bytes Desc: not available URL: From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 30 11:52:46 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:52:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" Message-ID: Adam wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote: | Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is | difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also | pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, | terrorist-grade, etc. >I think a larger problem is that we don't know how to build it. And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their betas to the NSA, you never will. ~Faustine. From batman_svejk at fuckyou.co.uk Thu Aug 30 14:57:26 2001 From: batman_svejk at fuckyou.co.uk (Batman Svejk) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:57:26 -0700 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list Message-ID: <200108302157.OAA32755@mail25.bigmailbox.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From frissell at panix.com Thu Aug 30 11:59:16 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: <20010829232844.B24387@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Maybe, but it seems like offense just got a boost. Passive biodefenses > don't work against an active offense. If sniffers start landing on your > skin and taking a microscopic sample, then they won't be trivial to > defend against. How about a tailored virus that modifies your DNA on a rotating basis in non significant fashion so that you're constantly "new". I wonder if that would be theoretically possible? Fun times. DCF ---- I suffer from a recognized social affective disorder that prevents me from obeying government rules. I'm thus handicapped and protected by the ADA. It's in the DSM-IV. You could look it up. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 30 13:13:06 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:13:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote: > How about a tailored virus that modifies your DNA on a rotating basis in > non significant fashion so that you're constantly "new". I wonder if > that would be theoretically possible? Fun times. You would have to do it to the 'junk' and 'long term unused' portions (ie introns), I doubt it would work with exons. There's also the issue of timing. Using a virus it would be hard to hit all the cells at one time. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at homeport.org Thu Aug 30 12:16:59 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:16:59 -0400 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <200108301839.f7UIduf05548@slack.lne.com> References: <20010830140758.A11864@weathership.homeport.org> <200108301839.f7UIduf05548@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010830151659.A12544@weathership.homeport.org> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:36:56AM -0700, Tim May wrote: | On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 11:07 AM, Adam Shostack wrote: | | > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote: | > | Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is | > | difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also | > | pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, | > | terrorist-grade, etc. | > | > I think a larger problem is that we don't know how to build it. Once | > we build it, we may be able to market it. But when you look at | > building something for dissidents, you realize that you have very high | > stealth requirements, since using such software is likely to subject | > its users to rubber-hose, and harsher forms of attack. | | A quibble, but I would separate the stego aspect from the untraceability | aspect. It is true that in certain regime--China, Afghanistan, Iran, | Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.--sending and receiving encrypted packets will | be ipso facto proof of guilt or at least grounds for hauling in for | torture. Even stego in the ad banners, sound files, images, etc. will be | problematic. This is the stego, or stealth, topic we all know about. | (Aimee and Ray, cover your ears.) | | In regimes where something akin to the First Amendment provides | unassailable protection against sending and receiving bits in a form not | necessarily readable by snoops, providing untraceability is enough. Well, I'm glad you'd seperate it, but when you get down to constructing systems, you have to re-integrate it. And if you're talking about dissidents, you have to solve it really well. I wouldn't be comfortable saying "Yeah, use this and Bejing won't bother you" with anything less. Maybe you would. As far as not readable by the FBI/NSA, see the Back/Muller/Stiglic paper. As far as your opinions of our business, well, I'm really uninterested in getting into a pissing match with you. The reality is that customers and investors give us money tp produce privacy tools, and they, not you, are the ones I need to keep happy. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From juicy at melontraffickers.com Thu Aug 30 15:33:27 2001 From: juicy at melontraffickers.com (A. Melon) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:33:27 -0700 Subject: The Tim May Question Message-ID: <6b27c70a11b79df3173bf6d781338b73@melontraffickers.com> In another message Tim wrote: >On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 12:11 AM, Reese wrote: >> It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be >> appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as >> you sort of noted. > > Fuck off. I'll take constructive criticism from people who are > better writers than I, or at least in the same ballpark. > > But not from those who have left no lasting impression. I'm not sure if Reese was replying to one of my messages, but this obsession less productive posters have with Tim is peculiar. Looked at as an engineering problem, one tends to look at the underperforming components. Let's say you are running a steel mill, and the average uptime of your blast furnaces is 10%. One is 95%. Nobody would spend their time trying to get the last 5% out of the best furnace. Anybody would look at it and figure out how to get the other furnaces performing. So, some other force is at work. One candidate is the usual tedious resentment that some people feel towards people they see as smarter, more knowledgeable, and more creative than themselves. This sort of behavior is deeply repugnant to me, much more so than occasional political incorrectness. Another candidate is that certain people see Tim as somehow their leader (or something), therefore making him accountable in some way. Given that Tim is not anybody's leader and doesn't seem to want to be, this is less repugnant than it is ridiculous. From ppomes at ieee.org Thu Aug 30 16:20:56 2001 From: ppomes at ieee.org (Paul Pomes) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:20:56 -0700 Subject: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums In-Reply-To: <4DDCE8648ECDD11187910060979C535802BCD82C@lsumcbolivar.lsuh s c.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010830160606.00a2b020@pop.earthlink.net> At 07:00 AM 8/30/01 -0500, "Dean, James" wrote: >Don't fall for this. After registering at www.nature.com (supplying >personal details), you find you'll have to pay to see the article. What a surprise that the leading science journal in the world charges for the latest content. I'm shocked, simply shocked, that market forces apply to publishing and that I must pay for my subscription. It's almost always possible to find free copies of a paper somewhere on the net for those willing to do the search. I prefer subscribing to Nature's value-added journal instead. /pbp From pcw2 at flyzone.com Thu Aug 30 13:32:44 2001 From: pcw2 at flyzone.com (Peter Wayner) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:32:44 -0400 Subject: Anonymity News of the Weird In-Reply-To: <20010830140758.A11864@weathership.homeport.org> References: <3.0.6.32.20010830094443.00865100@pop.sprynet.com> <200108301704.f7UH4tf04912@slack.lne.com> <20010830140758.A11864@weathership.homeport.org> Message-ID: <200108302032.f7UKWsX23985@robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net> From News Of the Weird: ...the Alcoholics Anonymous chapter in Milwaukee still does not know who the man was who collapsed and died during a meeting on May 23 (because those attending meetings usually do so anonymously). [St. Louis Post-Dispatch-AP, 6-3-01] From a3495 at cotse.com Thu Aug 30 14:11:32 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" Message-ID: Mike wrote: "Faustine" wrote : >Adam wrote: >On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:02:54AM -0700, Tim May wrote: >| Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is >| difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also >| pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, >| terrorist-grade, etc. >>I think a larger problem is that we don't know how to build it. > >And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are >willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their >betas to the NSA, you never will. > >Holy faulty logic Batman! This has to be one of the more doofy things >I've heard. It's right up there with the EMI Grounding Strap thread. >What're you going to do, sell a product in CompUSA with instructions to >the cashiers that the NSA is not allowed to buy it? If the NSA is >willing to pay for some software that's great. They've got as much right >to buy it as anyone else. True, of course they do. "Technology is morally neutral," sure, whatever. Yay capitalism. I still think handing over your security product beta on a silver platter in exchange for a nice fat government contract is a stupid, stupid idea. >As long as they obey the law! and don't >reverse engineer it, let them share in financing further development. Do you really think that anyone would have the slightest qualm about reverse engineering a product like this when "national security interests" are at stake? >I would find it more relevant to know which commercial product designs >have been influenced by which non-commercial agencies. Either way, the prospects for "dissident-grade untraceability" are fairly bleak. >oy g'vay ( sp? ) close enough. ;) ~Faustine. From declan at well.com Thu Aug 30 14:16:52 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:16:52 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8E9720.76A8EBBE@lsil.com>; from mmotyka@lsil.com on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:42:24PM -0700 References: <3B8E9720.76A8EBBE@lsil.com> Message-ID: <20010830171652.A9884@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:42:24PM -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > Bear may not be as far off the mark as you think. Remember back when the > hot news of the day was militia groups how advocating the violent > overthrow of the government and playing soldier in the woods could > constitute intent? Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating > the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating > code? Should the political speech and coding action be separated? Is > participating in both risky? I consider code to be publishing and speech > but look at some of the recent GRUsa activity that addresses that issue. Can you get put in jail for writing code? Sure. Just ask Dmitry Sklyarov. Or read the old crypto regs. Or write a bot that posts child porn and start it going. Lots of ways to run afoul of the law -- and that's in the U.S., where we may even be a bit more liberal about such things, and where some circuits even believe source code is free speech. But it does not logically follow that just because you code something, such as an anonymous mix or similar system, that you have broken the law. In fact, you probably haven't. -Declan From newdomreg at yahoo.com Thu Aug 30 17:19:55 2001 From: newdomreg at yahoo.com (NewDomainRegistry.net) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:19:55 -0700 Subject: .BIZ .INFO domain extensions Message-ID: <200108310019.RAA13356@ecotone.toad.com> Dear Internet User, The Dot Com era may be over, but an exciting new era on the Internet is about to begin. On October 01, 2001 a new top-level domain name extension called Dot Biz will be officially launched. As a member of the Internet community, you must pre-register your Dot Biz domain name as soon as possible to avoid disappointment as there will be tremendous rush from the general public once this new extension is reported in the mainstream media. We have now begun accepting pre-registrations for the .BIZ and other upcoming new domain extensions. This means that you can now pre-register for an attractive new domain name of your choice and significantly increase your chances of securing your domain name. If you missed out on .COM, here is your chance with .BIZ. If you do not act as soon as possible, you may unfortunately miss out on the biggest cyberspace land grab in the history of the Internet. The time to act is now. Visit: http://www.NewDomainRegistry.net to enter your domain names for pre-registration. Over 550,000 names have already been pre-registered in our servers by savvy consumers; however, this is just a small inkling of the expected demand on launch day...over 3 million domain names are expected to be registered immediately after the official launch. According to a July 02, 2001 ZDNET news article, industry analysts estimate that "15 million dot-biz names will be registered by 2005," thus making Dot Biz even more popular than Dot Com. An exciting new era is about to unfold on the Internet. Go to http://www.NewDomainRegistry.net to pre-register now. *************************************************************************** We strongly oppose the use of SPAM email and do not want anyone who does notwish to receive our mailings to receive them. As a result, we have retained the services of an independent 3rd party to administer our list management and remove list(www.removeyou.com). This is not SPAM. If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please click below and enter your email at the bottom of the page. You may then rest- assured that you will never receive another email from us again. http://www.removeyou.com The 21st Century Solution. I.D. # 032950 *************************************************************************** From wolf at priori.net Thu Aug 30 17:40:13 2001 From: wolf at priori.net (Meyer Wolfsheim) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp Size: 1673 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pwk at acm.org Thu Aug 30 17:50:37 2001 From: pwk at acm.org (Paul Krumviede) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:50:37 -0700 Subject: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20010829231620.02fa57a0@idiom.com> References: <5.0.2.1.1.20010829231620.02fa57a0@idiom.com> Message-ID: <70859069.999193837@localhost> --On Wednesday, 29 August, 2001 23:25 -0700 Bill Stewart wrote: > > http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/08/29/stealth.computing/index.html > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/29/199205&mode=thread > > A group of researchers at Notre Dame figured out how to use the > TCP Checksum calculations to get other computers to do number-crunching > for them. > > "Below, we present an implementation of a parasitic computer > using the checksum function. In order for this to occur, > one needs to design a special message that coerces a target server > into performing the desired computation." > > The article has the amount of great mathematical depth you'd expect from > CNN :-) But it does say that the paper will be published in "Nature" this > week. for those who didn't see the nature article, the authors have the article (and supplementary material) available at http://www.nd.edu/~parasite/ -paul From vze2q34d at verizon.net Thu Aug 30 15:27:49 2001 From: vze2q34d at verizon.net (vze2q34d at verizon.net) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:27:49 -0400 Subject: No subject Message-ID: My apologies to everyone who received PayPay e-mail from my server. It was not my intention to dupe or mislead anyone concerning their program. PayPal is an excellent service and I regret ever becoming involved in something which they consider illegal. For anyone who sent or tried to send money through their system I will send the e-book Internet Cash machines valued at $24.95 for the same $5.00 gift plus the addresses of several other programs which are making money with free signups. Send fowarded or returned e-mail to: jiva19 at aol.com along with your $5.00 gift and I will include interNetACTIVE valued at $29.00. Last but not least Try this program receive $5.00 cash for signup & $5.00 cash for referrals. Enjoy Your Surf Ron Johnson From pzakas at toucancapital.com Thu Aug 30 15:38:52 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:38:52 -0400 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c131a4$8bf98e30$0300a8c0@chimera19> > Faustine wrote: > I wouldn't trust either of them with anything significant. More importantly, the claims that safeweb/triangle boy actually works may be misleading to the people who will rely on its claims of securely circumventing government censorship in china. The entire in/out bound traffic for the system can be effectively blocked or monitored. Plus did it strike anyone as odd that the 'triangle boy' software, to be used when access to safeweb.com is blocked, is downloaded from the safeweb.com website? I've not seen that software anywhere else and frankly downloading/having that triangleboy software in itself is a dead giveaway of suspicious activity isn't it? I'm not as worried about US citizens using the stuff in the usa, just concerned for chinese dissidents using it in china. phillip From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Aug 30 09:41:18 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:41:18 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: secure IRC/messaging successor Message-ID: Gale http://www.gale.org/ seems a well thought out infrastructure. Is the consensus "this is it", or have I missed any alternatives? TIA, -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From broadminded at address.com Thu Aug 30 16:05:54 2001 From: broadminded at address.com (Dr. Carter) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:05:54 -0400 Subject: To: cypherpunks as a Good Person-Information benefiting you & people around you Message-ID: <606383-2200184302355480@address.com> Dear cypherpunks: Would you mind my introducing the information which, I believe, may significantly benefit both you and people around you? If you do not like it, you may delete this e-mail anytime (please). You may ask yourself -- How to make people respect you How to win friends How to let your conduct help your health, work, job, career, relationships, spirit, mind, well-being, ... How to make your life smoother & happier and do whatever you like without making other people unpleasant How to ... ....... (much more) You can find all answers in this handbook: "Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century" by Dr. John Newton It is the best educational GIFT idea to children, friends, relatives, classmates, students, parents, teachers, ... BENEFITS to Each Individual Reader: Many! --- such as for health, work, job, career, self-improvement, education, relationships, spirit, mind, well-being, and much more, particularly in the 21st century. People around you will also be benefited. (Please see the PREFACE of the book for details.) EVERYONE may find this handbook useful and helpful, regardless of age (from children to oldsters), occupation, rank, status, gender, nationality, country and region. If you are a parent or a teacher, you can learn how to develop good conduct of your children or students from this handbook. Please advise your children or students to read the book. These will result in great benefits to both you and them. Incidentally, it is the best gift idea to students, teachers and parents in the "back to school" period. This book is a must for EVERYONE to make a better preparation for personal conduct for the 21st century. The book's title is obvious to manifest its content. The complete useful conduct principles cover not only what we should do but also what we should not do -- especially aiming at the faults people make often and easily. This timely, unique and very important handbook is designed to suit most people, and is self-contained. User-friendly. This book is significantly different and better than the competitive works. Some of its innovative contents may help solve the problems the Western culture cannot. The book's merit and importance have been recognized and praised by many experts, public elected officials and world leaders. The Author, John Newton, holds a Ph.D. from MIT, and does researches at Harvard. His long-term research on "The personal conduct in the human society of the 21st century" results in the book. It is published by Nicer Century World Organization, of which the headquarter location is beside Harvard University and MIT, two leading institutes in new knowledge and literature. There are two kinds of binding for the book: Hardcover (case bound, Smyth sewn; with dust jacket), list price US$19.95; Paperback (perfect bound), list price US$9.95. Both editions are unabridged. 60 lb natural acid-free excellent and healthful papers. You can get the book from many fine on-line bookstores and traditional bookstores. For your convenience, I herewith provide you with a link directly to the book pages of an on-line bookstore. The largest discounts are currently offered by AllDirect.com (as I know). Therefore, if you reside in the U.S., I provide you with the link: http://www.alldirect.com/book.asp?isbn=0967370574 (Hardcover, 40% off, limited-time offer) http://www.alldirect.com/book.asp?isbn=0967370582 (Paperback, 36% off, limited-time offer) Unfortunately AllDirect.com at present does not ship books to other countries. Therefore, if you reside outside the USA, you may go to http://seekbooks.com/featuredbook1.asp?bookid=0967370574 (Hardcover, 27% off, limited-time offer) http://seekbooks.com/featuredbook1.asp?bookid=0967370582 (Paperback, 23.5% off, limited-time offer) You may simply click any link above (if your e-mail has the capacity) or copy/paste it to a Web browser Address line and click "Go" (or "Enter"). Of course, you may freely choose other bookstores. If any bookstore is out-of-stock, you may backorder the book there (then the book will be shipped to you once it is available) or go to another bookstore; if you wish to be faster, you may choose to order the book directly from the distributor vie E-mail, mailto: order at bookmaster.com As you can see, the book is very cheap, at present in particular. This may be one (a small one) of many reasons that it becomes the best GIFT idea -- "much more value for a much less fee". On the other hand, if you nevertheless can't afford it, you may ask your local libraries and school library to purchase it. The libraries will probably then appreciate your respectable suggestion. This is a great contribution you will make to your neighborhood! "I find it heartening that you are crusading on behalf of this worthy book. It has occupied a space on our shelves for some time now. To have this book in our library is a quiet source of pride to me, the librarian." said Mr. Don Brusha, a highly respectable Librarian, Avon Park Library, Avon Park, Florida, USA, in a letter to me regarding the book. Please forward this e-mail to people you know -- children, friends, relatives, classmates, students, parents, teachers, ..., because they will be benefited, too. This is wonderful kindness you provide them! cypherpunks, best wishes to you! Sincerely yours, Tom Carter, Ph.D. President, Nicer Century World Organization Massachusetts USA (Nicer Century World Organization is an educational, non-profit, non-partisan organization; it endeavors to make the 21st century nicer than ever before. To accomplish its mission, Nicer Century World Organization is proud to introduce the book.) From info at giganetstore.com Thu Aug 30 11:31:30 2001 From: info at giganetstore.com (info at giganetstore.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:31:30 +0100 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?SuEgRGlzcG9u7XZlbCAh?= Message-ID: <05c8b5131181e81WWWSHOPENS@wwwshopens.giganetstore.com> Prepare-se para muita diversão, com novos e irresistíveis heróis, nesta gritante comédia aclamada pelo público em todo o Mundo ! 102 Dálmatas - VHS (Falado em Português) Glenn Close Gerard Depardieu Clique Aqui! ----- 102 Dálmatas - VHS (Versão Legendada) Glenn Close Gerard Depardieu Clique Aqui! ----- 102 Dálmatas - DVD Glen Close Gerard Depardieu Clique Aqui! ----- E para aqueles que são fãs dos Dálmatas aqui estão mais estas sugestões: 102 Dálmatas Walt Disney O Livro Clique Aqui! ----- 102 Dalmatians: Puppies to the Rescue Jogo para Gameboy Clique Aqui! ----- Para retirar o seu email desta mailing list deverá entrar no nosso site http:\\www.giganetstore.com , ir à edição do seu registo e retirar a opção de receber informação acerca das nossas promoções e novos serviços -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6798 bytes Desc: not available URL: From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Thu Aug 30 23:43:55 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:43:55 -1000 Subject: The Tim May Question Message-ID: At 15:33 8/30/2001 -0700, A. Melon wrote: >In another message Tim wrote: >>On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 12:11 AM, Reese wrote: >>> It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be >>> appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as >>> you sort of noted. >> >> Fuck off. I'll take constructive criticism from people who are >> better writers than I, or at least in the same ballpark. >> >> But not from those who have left no lasting impression. > >I'm not sure if Reese was replying to one of my messages, but this >obsession less productive posters have with Tim is peculiar. Even more peculiar, the wrong turns taken when responding to an out- of-context quote. Just as an aside, didn't you find it ironic that Tim told me of all people, to "Fuck Off"??? >Looked at as an engineering problem, one tends to look at the >underperforming components. Why look at a utilization issue as an engineering problem? Unless your object is fitting square pegs to round holes. Do you have pointy hair? Behold my complete post (less .sig), and what I replied to: At 18:47 8/25/2001 -0500, Anonymous wrote: >I'm not too delighted with the "I have friends who want to kill >all Jews" type of remarks, but beggars can't be choosers. > >People carp about Tim, but I'd like to see anybody try to do one >Tim May quality post every day for two weeks. Including the "I have friends who want to kill all the Jews" type of remarks? GIGO, yada. It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as you sort of noted. Perhaps it was Anonymous you should've referred to, instead of me. Regardless, Fuck Off. Reeza! From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Thu Aug 30 23:43:55 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:43:55 -1000 Subject: The Tim May Question In-Reply-To: <6b27c70a11b79df3173bf6d781338b73@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010830203133.03632cc0@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> At 15:33 8/30/2001 -0700, A. Melon wrote: >In another message Tim wrote: >>On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 12:11 AM, Reese wrote: >>> It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be >>> appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as >>> you sort of noted. >> >> Fuck off. I'll take constructive criticism from people who are >> better writers than I, or at least in the same ballpark. >> >> But not from those who have left no lasting impression. > >I'm not sure if Reese was replying to one of my messages, but this >obsession less productive posters have with Tim is peculiar. Even more peculiar, the wrong turns taken when responding to an out- of-context quote. >Looked at as an engineering problem, one tends to look at the >underperforming components. Why look at a utilization issue as an engineering problem? Unless the object is to fit the square peg to the round hole. Behold my post in its entirety: At 18:47 8/25/2001 -0500, Anonymous wrote: >I'm not too delighted with the "I have friends who want to kill >all Jews" type of remarks, but beggars can't be choosers. > >People carp about Tim, but I'd like to see anybody try to do one >Tim May quality post every day for two weeks. Including the "I have friends who want to kill all the Jews" type of remarks? GIGO, yada. It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as you sort of noted. Perhaps it was Anonymous you should've referred to, instead of me. Reese From malcolm at nukewoody.com Thu Aug 30 20:58:27 2001 From: malcolm at nukewoody.com (Malcolm Idaho) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:58:27 -0700 Subject: Exporing Military encryption to China Message-ID: <200108310405.XAA00518@einstein.ssz.com> Customs halts export to China, charges 2 By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES      Two men, one a naturalized U.S. citizen and the other a permanent resident alien, were arrested yesterday by the U.S. Customs Service on charges of attempting to export military encryption technology to China. Top Stories € Bush to invest in defense € 12 Democrats do not regret role in tax cut € Military seeks means to save force structure € Construction set for N. Korea nuclear plant € Schools gird for fights over Indian names € Firetrucks dispatched to wrong locations      Eugene You Tsai Hsu of Blue Springs, Mo., and David Tzu Wvi Yang of Temple City, Calif., were taken into custody by undercover Customs Service agents following a four-month investigation by the agency's Baltimore field office.      Mr. Hsu, who became a U.S. citizen in 1999, and Mr. Yang, a Taiwan native who is a resident alien, were accused in an affidavit of attempting to export to China encryption devices used to safeguard classified communications, in violation of the Arms Export Act.      A third man, identified as Charlson Ho, also was named in the conspiracy and is believed to be in Singapore. Mr. Hsu was arrested at his Missouri home. Mr. Yang was taken into custody at his office in Compton, Calif.      "The technology that these individuals were attempting to export to China is among the most sensitive items on the U.S. munitions list," said Agent Allan Doby, who heads the Baltimore office. "The sale of these units is so tightly controlled that the National Security Agency must approve it."      According to an affidavit by Customs Service Agent Mary Hamman, the agency was notified May 2 by the Defense Security Service that Mr. Hsu was attempting to purchase KIV-7HS encryption devices and user manuals for export to China. The devices, authorized for government use only, are designed to secure classified communications.      Ms. Hamman, in the affidavit, said Mr. Hsu sought to buy the equipment from Mykotronx Inc., a private company located in Columbia, Md. Officials at Mykotronx called the Customs Service office in Baltimore, which told the firm to direct Mr. Hsu to an "intermediary representative."      That representative, an undercover Customs agent, later engaged in what the affidavit said was a series of telephone conversations between May 2 and Aug. 18 with Mr. Hsu, Mr. Yang and Mr. Ho, which were tape-recorded. The telephone conversations showed that the men were working for a Singapore firm, Wei Soon Loong Private Ltd., that wanted to buy the encryption devices.      During the conversations, according to the affidavit, Mr. Hsu confirmed that the end user of the encryption devices was located in China. The affidavit does not elaborate.      Ms. Hamman wrote that Mr. Hsu, after being told that the purchase of the equipment would be illegal and that permits to send the devices to China could not be obtained, said he wanted to proceed anyway, suggesting to the undercover agent that "everyone will just keep their mouths shut."      The affidavit said Mr. Hsu then suggested that the agent talk directly with his buyer in Singapore, who would receive the equipment and forward it to China. The agent them spoke with Mr. Ho, who also confirmed that the equipment was bound for China.      In one conversation, the affidavit said, Mr. Ho told the undercover agent the Chinese buyers "don't want too many people to know" about the deal. The document said Mr. Hsu later suggested that instead of a check or wire transfer as payment for the encryption equipment, cash would be better "so there's no trail."      In a conversation with Mr. Yang, the affidavit said, the undercover agent was told by Mr. Yang that he had agreed to "move the merchandise" for Mr. Hsu and Mr. Ho, and that he "fully understands the whole situation."      "I've been doing this business for more than 20 years, I know how to handle these problems," Mr. Yang is quoted as saying.      The affidavit said Mr. Yang told the agent the encryption equipment would be shipped from Los Angeles through Taiwan to Singapore, where it would then be forwarded "to the end user in China."      Mr. Hsu and Mr. Yang were not available yesterday. Wei Soon Loong, the Singapore company, did not return calls for comment.      The maximum sentence for smuggling sensitive technology is 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for each violation.      Customs spokesman Dean Boyd said people or companies engaged in the export of items included on the U.S. Munitions List to all foreign countries, except Canada, must be registered with the State Department. In addition, he said, persons or companies must obtain a license from the department for each item on the list before it can be exported. From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 30 19:12:50 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:12:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <20010829223838.B23860@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > But > even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference > between speech and action. Complete and utter bullshit. > -Declan -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From tcmay at got.net Thu Aug 30 21:14:46 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:14:46 -0700 Subject: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108310417.f7V4Hjf08612@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 02:11 PM, Faustine wrote: > True, of course they do. "Technology is morally neutral," sure, > whatever. > Yay capitalism. I still think handing over your security product beta > on a > silver platter in exchange for a nice fat government contract is a > stupid, > stupid idea. And since software is infinitely replicable, all the NSA would have to do if ZKS refused to sell to them is to get a copy anywhere else: from an employee who orders it sent to his home address, from a contractor, off the shelf at Fry's or Circuit City (someday, maybe not today), and so on. Much more importantly, modern crypto relies to avoiding "security through obscurity." As outlined by Kirchoff in the 19th century, the security of a cipher ultimately depends only on the _key_, not the algorithm used to process the key. (Phrased in more modern terms, figuring out the algorithm is an "easy" problem, presumably solvable in polynomial time, while discovering the key is either provably impossible (except by guessing) or in the case of RSA is believed to be "hard" (not yet proven, and textbooks will tell you all kinds of stuff about what "hard" means). Now Freedom is not a cipher, but a system. And no doubt supplying an attacker with the program would help him to design an attack. Supplying him with the source code and detailed specs would help him even more. But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design eventually. But not the keys. In any case, NSA probably had it from their buddies in Canada, who either got it by arrangement with ZKS or snarfed it in one of several ways. The security of Freedom should not depend on even having access to the source code, else ZKS would be lying when they claim that even they cannot trace a message back to the sender. (Something which some may doubt...) > > Either way, the prospects for "dissident-grade untraceability" are > fairly > bleak. You pontificate as if you know something about our field, when you clearly know very little. Get some education if you plan to pontificate like this. A mixnet of the N extant remailers offers pretty damned good untraceability. Needs some work on getting remailers more robust, but the underlying nested encryption looks to be a formidable challenge for Shin Bet to crack. --Tim May From bhwstreet at csauto.com Thu Aug 30 13:19:36 2001 From: bhwstreet at csauto.com (Wallstreet Universe) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:19:36 +0100 Subject: The Wallstreet Report! Message-ID: <20010831040939.DF3B6228E6@mail.shakuru.com> We have recently acquired several web properties. You are receiving this as an opt-in subscriber of one of those properties in accordance with current SPAM guidelines. If you feel that you are receiving this in error, please go to http://www.csauto.com and unsubscribe. Failure to do so will result in regular receipt of our mailings - Thank you for your understanding. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> AUGUST 31 - THE WALLSTREET REPORT <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> The Wallstreet Report is published twice per week. It is our goal to provide you with Technical Analysis, Daily Market Updates, Cool Freebies and to pass along some Excellent Stock Profiles. Hello Serious Investors, The downward spiral continued on Thursday burying the Dow Jones below the key 10K level and forcing many other major market averages to post new relative lows. News from overseas was mostly responsible for today�s plunge in addition to the dull earnings outlook that investors heard from Sun Microsystems (SUNW) yesterday Earlier on Thursday, the European Central Bank cut interest rates by 25 basis points to 4.25%, delivering its second easing this year in response to increasingly weakening growth and slowing inflation. The cut was not unexpected as the ECB has been under heavy pressure to ease for quite a while. However, some had hoped that the ECB would be more aggressive in today�s decision and would cut by a half a point. The U.S. federal funds rate stands at 3.5%, and Europe is clearly behind the curve by majority opinion. But what really distressed the equity markets today was the ECB�s apparent bias against further easing. The European Bank has been much more stubborn than the Fed or even the Bank of England in bringing down rates despite the fast deterioration of the European economy. Today�s move was only the third rate cut by the stingy ECB since it took control over rates in the single currency zone in January 1999. And more gloomy news from Europe followed. The number one software giant got hurt on the day as investors realized Microsoft is now having �problems with the law� over in Europe. European Union regulators have opened additional proceedings against the company today. European Union thinks that Microsoft could be in violation of antitrust laws by tying its Media Player product into its Windows operating system in attempt to extend its dominance from personal computers into other markets. Despite many brokerage firms trying to defend Microsoft, the stock was sold off sharply losing 5.5% on the day. +>+>+> GOOD NEWS... Notice that the Volatility index (VIX.X) is now over 28 and made another advance of 9% in today�s session. Market bottoms are often made when this index spikes over 40 for a number of days, so this index is moving in the right direction at this time. +>+>+> While the market is deciding which way to go, here is 20 FREE Stock trading lessons to help fine turn your investing skills... CLICK HERE FOR 20 FREE STOCK TRADING LESSONS! http://www.onlinetradingexpo.com/lessons.html +>+>+> PAYLESS SHOES - $2 off $10 http://www.paylessinfo.com/corporate/misc/general_offline_coupon.html HAVE A GREAT WEEK! Steven Schwartz - Editor & Staff From nobody at hyperreal.pl Thu Aug 30 14:24:19 2001 From: nobody at hyperreal.pl (Anonymous) Date: 30 Aug 2001 21:24:19 -0000 Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: Tim May wrote: > I don't recall the context, but I don't have any such friends or > even acquaintances. Even those I know on the Far Right don't want to > kill _all_ Jews, just the pesky freedom-stealing ones, and the > millions who form the Zionist Occupation Government in the Zionist > Entity of ZOG-Occupied Palestine. This was the remark I had in mind: Tim May wrote on August 16, 2001: > (I know folks who think Judaism is in fact far worse, and who hope > and pray for the day when 4 million Jews in Occupied Palestine are > rounded up and liquidated. I take no position on this... I see now that "all Jews" mischaracterized your statement. My apologies. > Add nerve gases and biological agents to the mix over the next > several years. Cuts both ways, of course. If the past is any guide, mostly the innocent would die. > And I won't shed a tear, as those who left New York and Oslo and > Berlin and Phoenix to go to some tiny patch of land which they claim > YHWH the Terrible granted to the sons of a desert minor > potentate--this all revealed in a hash dream by an old man, > allegedly--well, they were fools in 1948 to kick Arabs off of their > farms and out of their homes. The Jews will suffer mightily. Which > might be all they really want, oy vey! I've known very few Jewish people who believe God gave them Israel, but it clearly has something to do with why that particular patch of land was chosen. Maybe it's the Schelling point of Zionism. The area is symbolically loaded for Jewish people, but the downside is that it's important to other people as well. Most Israelis that I've known see the religiously based Zionists as crazies, especially the ones from the U.S. Saying that Israelis are a certain way because there are people in Israel with certain views is as reasonable as saying that Jim Bell is a good guide to the cypherpunks. The exact nature of Zionism seems hard to pin down, sort of like defining a "cypherpunk". It is clear that many Zionists are not religious. > And I know many people who support, as I do of course, the right of > Aryan Nation(s) to do their thing without lawsuits from offended > Jews and liberals. Last I heard, Aryan Nation(s) was not building > any gas chambers. Shutting down the "organization" due to, for > example, the murder of Allan Berg in Denver makes no more moral or > legal sense than shutting down the Catholics because some Catholics > have bombed abortion clinics. Agreed. Many prominent Catholics have publicly declared that abortion is murder. Applying the same level of integrity as has been applied in criminal trials of technical people, this could be seen as incitement. What is insidious about charging people with organizational involvement is that it bypasses the criminal justice system. The organization itself doesn't stand trial. At the same time the members are not charged with any specfic crime. Thus, the trial can consist of little more than innuendo and the defendant stands a good chance of conviction. It is very close to simple political repression. > The Jews lacked their equivalent of a Reformation, the Lutheran and > Calvinist revolution in thinking which laid the groundwork for the > modern age. And instead of moving on, embracing the future, many of > them retreated to a desert land they thought of as their historic > homeland, never mind that more Polish blood flowed through the veins > of Jews born in Krakow than blood from their ancestors who fled or > otherwise left Palestine 1500 or more years ago. But aren't you the one bringing up the racial purity theory here? I've never known a Jewish person, and I've known many, who spent any time worrying about the genetic purity of their Jewish descent. Presumably they exist somewhere, but the breed is rare. Some Jewish people do seem to have long discussions about "What is a Jew (sic)?", but they do not seem to be genetically driven. I am having a little difficulty understanding what you mean by "embracing the future". This strikes me as a straw man, but perhaps I'm not getting your point. The Jewish community, even the Jewish religious community, does not seem to have had any problem accepting scientific discoveries, which one could describe as "embracing the future". Many Christians, Protestant and otherwise, have had serious problems in this department. For example, the theory of evolution was accepted without a fuss. Even in Jewish religious schools, the theory of evolution is taught. I think the idea behind going to Palestine and founding Israel was to find a way to not be murdered any more. After over 1000 years of abuse ending with 2/3 of the group being killed, it doesn't seem unreasonable that many of the survivors would conclude that it was unsafe to live among Europeans. My guess is that they figured they could just sort of push the Arabs aside and after a bit of fuss, everybody would get used to the idea and they'd have a country where they would have full political rights and even own land without fears of confiscation. Most peoples have done exactly the same thing at some time or other. And, there was already a sizeable Jewish population in Palestine. Do you believe that Jewish activities along these lines are more offensive than similar activities by many other people? If so, do you find them offensive because they are so recent, or is it just the unpleasant fact that American money is contributing to it? > I don't care too much if Arabs and Jews are killing each other, but > I hate like hell to see taxpayer money and armaments shipped to > ZOG-Occupied Palestine to help kill more Arabs and expand ZOG > borders. Agreed. I have better things to do with my money, too. Here's my somewhat uninformed take on the Middle East: Anything the U.S. is doing there is going to be related to oil. Support of Israel gives the U.S. cards to play with the oil producing countries. If the oil producing companies are uncooperative, Israel gets new cool weapons. If they are cooperative, then the U.S. news media start talking about the bad things the Israelis are doing. When the oil producing countries complain, the answer is probably that the Jewish lobby is so powerful that the U.S. has to support the Israelis. I believe that the Jewish lobby is powerful only to the extent that they are allowed to be. If they stood in the way of U.S. policy to any significant extent, they would be curtailed. Israel also plays a useful role for the oil producing governments - they help keep the population unified. A great deal of money flowing into the area does not benefit the populations of the countries there. For example, half of adult male Saudis are illiterate. Keeping those people focused on Israel keeps them from noticing where the money is going. Also, the rulers can accuse detractors of being Israeli spies. I do not think U.S. support for Israel has much to do with post-Holocaust compassion or with the desire to support a democracy in the Middle East or with the Jewish lobby. > And I am offended--but also amused--by the irony of European Jews > recapitulating Hitler's "lebensraum" and "Endlosung" solutions so > soon after WW II ended. Yes, Jacobo Timerman ("Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number") said the same thing a few years after he fled to Israel from Argentina. He made himself somewhat unpopular by questioning the propriety of the invasion of Lebanon. Some Israelis felt he was ungrateful. Sort of interesting because the original idea was that everybody Jewish could consider themselves Israeli and therefore gratitude would not be in order. (A comparison could be made to the Palestinian situation with respect to their alleged brother Arabs.) Anyway, there is probably a well understood psychological phenomenon at work. Once somebody is abused, they will tend to find somebody else, hopefully subordinate, to mistreat. I've wondered whether this effect isn't related to explain Henry Kissinger's criminality. Kissinger lost two relatives in the Holocaust, but in his political career he associated with and backed people with less than pristine credentials. For example, Nixon had connections to war criminals associated with the Rumanian Iron Guard. The military regimes Kissinger encouraged in South America tended to have people with a certain admiration for the Third Reich. The policies pursued in Southeast Asia bear certain similarities to those of the Nazis. Timerman, incidentally, described himself as Zionist. >> People carp about Tim, but I'd like to see anybody try to do one >> Tim May quality post every day for two weeks. > Thanks, even if you're a Jew-lover. Literally the truth, although not exclusively. ;-) From Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Aug 30 12:36:10 2001 From: Eugene.Leitl at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Eugene Leitl) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:36:10 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote: > How about a tailored virus that modifies your DNA on a rotating basis > in non significant fashion so that you're constantly "new". I wonder Unless you go for full sequencing, you would have to jumble restriction sites. > if that would be theoretically possible? Fun times. Theoretically, yes. It would kill you in no time, though. Also, quantitative transfection in an adult is a lot to ask for. Killer vector indeed. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 21:44:07 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:44:07 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B8EB3A7.30293.39F1CA@localhost> -- > > Many people however believe that we [read: our government(s)] > > are in a downward spiral that is converging on > > police-and-welfare-state. In the US for example, we long ago > > abandoned our constitution. We still give it much lip > > service and we still have one of the "more free" societies > > but things are trending in the wrong direction. > > > > Each year more oppressive laws are passed, more things are > > made illegal to say or write or - if some have their way - > > think. (And of course it goes without saying that these > > things that are prohibited to us are available to "authorized > > users": those in intelligence, law enforcement, etc. - the > > usual "more equal" individuals.) On 28 Aug 2001, at 10:42, Aimee Farr wrote: > I might understand this better than you think. No you do not. You suggest we should not only obey all legislation that currently exists, but also legislation that does not currently exist, but that might be deemed to exist through failure of a judge to be amused, or legislation that might soon exist. This is of course completely impossible. Everyone has committed many serious crimes, often felonies, usually without ever being aware of it. I have committed hundreds of major felonies that could in theory give me many centuries of jail time, without ever doing anything dishonest, or doing anything particularly unusual for a respectable middle class person. Most companies I have worked for have knowingly committed many serious illegalities. My current company is making an honest effort to comply with all relevant legislation, but this effort appears to me ridiculous and doomed, since no one can really figure out what, if anything, the legislation we are attempting to comply with means, and what constitutes compliance. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG liVZOuTfoRZ0JfmM+NJZXhvgw6giwPDJ1L/iolQ7 4Q4yppLHxuZ/KDqZq2JgBqyRN3uKcX6lKlG7pjKDM From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 21:44:07 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:44:07 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <929ebe296fd59116e69e973df3e02999@dizum.com> Message-ID: <3B8EB3A7.30310.39F1C0@localhost> -- On 28 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Jim Choate wrote: > What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take > over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By > participating you may in fact be signing your own death > warrant. All the liberty that there is in the world today results from the Dutch revolt, the Glorious Revolution, and the American Revolution. No oppressive regimes, with the exception of the Chinese, were produced by revolution. Every successful revolution has been a major step forward for human liberty (the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the Sandinista revolution). Even in revolutions that failed, like the french, were the old system was swiftly restored by Napoleon, the power of the old regime was fatally undermined. The outcome of the recent revolutions in Somalia and Ethiopia may be piss poor by Western standards, but compared to the rest of Africa they are pretty good, and compared to the previous regimes, they are wonderful. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bstOJvcE7yZ9wE8/TgMBfXDE6jExhrBCsGAb/NnK 4Y74xyXZqu/wy4YGqo28RkMUFEWDhUUMk7L9BBPRe From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 30 19:58:33 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:58:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8E0C62.24058.3E4C16@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > I think the safest convenient path to development is to develop > untraceable cash in the US with restrictions on any large > transfers. Absolutely unacceptable: (1) Define "large"; (2) Define a (sane) rationale to justify this type of intrusion - tip: "The USG already does this" is neither sane nor rational. > James A. Donald -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 22:09:08 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:09:08 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <1742b50f7c27c08e467fc2911ac10b77@dizum.com> Message-ID: <3B8EB984.21855.50D8A2@localhost> -- On 28 Aug 2001, at 23:00, Nomen Nescio wrote: > The objection was raised, yes, it is moral, but is it > profitable? There are not many communist-opposed freedom > fighters around today, not much money to be made there. Most regimes on President Bush's shit list have an insurrection going against them. Most regimes with an insurrection going against them are on somebody's shit list. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG WtUFPNpsQLNxGP/qSqH2izBzHMq4ngVAAPohWVoX 4CIpMqIv/O63htMja6C1aD1cwbxzhNTB3Far6yVf8 From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 30 22:20:36 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:20:36 -0700 Subject: speech + action Message-ID: <3B8F1EA4.948851AE@lsil.com> Tim, It's not easy to find great links but I still say that speech + action is something that a prosecutor can use to the disadvantage of the accused even if the speech is legal and the action appears to be ineffectual or undirected. Look at how AP was used. 18 U.S.C. 23 1 seems to link speech directly with the action of paramilitary training, even if there is no specific target. The speech portion of the offense enables a heavy response to the otherwise unpunishable action. Whether or not anyone has been convicted under this statute there it sits, ready to pounce. Admittedly these are weak cites but I do think the ( legal_but_unpopular_speech + unpunishable_action = crime ) idea is embodied in laws. I think eventually it'll somehow get extended to address the cyberterrordangerouslyeducatedchaosprogrammerdeaththreat that faces each and every freedom-loving, net-browsing Amurrican today! Maybe the pro bono brigade of the unorganized, non-organizational, casually associational, non-paramilitary, non-coding, non-militia, profusely verbal cypherpunks flying circus will chime in with some fun stuff. Mike http://www.sfgate.com/okc/winokur/0423.html http://www.vpc.org/studies/awapara.htm In 1986, the ADL formulated model state legislation that would ban paramilitary training "aimed at provoking civil disorder."[104] In drafting the model bill, the ADL specifically stated that the statute must not violate First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Another objective was to draft the statute narrowly so that it would not prohibit legitimate lawful activities such as target shooting and other sporting events. This was important, the ADL stated, for "minimizing opposition to the bill by powerful special interest groups." [105] Laws based on the statute have passed in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Virginia.[106] http://www.channel4000.com/news/dimension/dimension-960425-133523.html http://www.hatemonitor.org/Research_articles/levin10.html - please read the last paragraph - keeping records of public speech becomes part of the procsecutor's toolbox - the speech seems to be a necessary component of the prosecution. "The current federal paramilitary training statute, 18 U.S.C. 23 1, punishes only those who instruct others in fomenting violent civil disorder. Clearly, the statute should punish trainees as well. Similar statutes have been enacted in at least 24 states. " http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/11460.html - Read this one and think about how speech could be used to facilitate indictment. http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq5.htm look at the end. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Thu Aug 30 20:30:47 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:30:47 -0500 Subject: OPT: Sarah Flannery on Cayley-Purser: An Investigation of a New Algorithm vs. the RSA Message-ID: <3B8F04E7.DE33F213@ssz.com> http://www.cayley-purser.ie/#The_Cayley_Purser_Algorithm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From mmotyka at lsil.com Thu Aug 30 22:51:49 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:51:49 -0700 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation Message-ID: <3B8F25F5.D1FDF61F@lsil.com> measl at mfn.org wrote : my old stuff : >> Another facet is that the well-to-do are attempting to remove their >> funds from the systems so they can use those funds to educate their >> children as they choose. A voucher system would surely benefit me >> financially. This is a reasonable desire but it will have a negative >> effect on the public school systems and a subsequent negative effect on >> the society as a whole. > >So I must educate my children according to the public good, and not the >good of the kids themselves? Fuck you. > Learn to read poopyhead (isn't that now the official CP insult?). Look at the part you snipped : I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) should be ruled out but you should at least think about the implications a bit. All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. Make well considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too much, too quickly and poorly crafted. By all means let's improve the educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid knee-jerk approach. Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good. >> I know the masses are a bit thick but do you >> want them to be even thicker? > >To be frank, sending kids to public schools is practically *requiring* >that they become "thick", merely in order to _survive_. > This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. Sounds like the sort of foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves. >> I wish there were more ( and better ) educational choices and that those >> choices were reflected reasonably in the financial systems but every >> proposal I've seen so far sucks moose bladder through a hairy straw. > >While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices >should not be available. > Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals and beneficial to the community. Again, the two goals are neither completely compatible nor mutually exclusive. >Make up your mind. > I have : good ideas, thumbs up, bad ideas, thumbs down. >-- >Yours, >J.A. Terranson >sysadmin at mfn.org > Fuck you back, Mike From nobody at mix.winterorbit.com Thu Aug 30 14:00:16 2001 From: nobody at mix.winterorbit.com (Anonymous) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:00:16 +0200 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list Message-ID: <8e84d753ac39b7e5c9628f05077fbb60@mix.winterorbit.com> > And I expect you are just another of the anonymous or pseudonymous > ranters, maybe the same one recently using "Nomen Nescio" or "A > Melon." I know for sure that there's more than one. "Any message posted to cypherpunks via an anonymous remailer gets an automatic +2 on hit points, for it practices what it preaches." -- Anonymous From ppomes at ieee.org Thu Aug 30 23:00:49 2001 From: ppomes at ieee.org (Paul Pomes) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:00:49 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <20010829223838.B23860@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010830225141.00a1f250@pop.earthlink.net> At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, wrote: >> But >> even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference >> between speech and action. > >Complete and utter bullshit. And complete and utter loss of reputation capital on your part. It disagrees 100% with my interactions with law enforcement. If you wish to make point, at least make it believable. /pbp From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 30 21:02:20 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:02:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation In-Reply-To: <3B8D2E0F.22A26DC0@lsil.com> Message-ID: > > "Home schooling is a social threat to public education," says > > Chris Lubienski, who teaches at Iowa State University's > > college of education. "It is taking some of the most affluent > > and articulate parents out of the system. These are the > > parents who know how to get things done with > > administrators." While I agree that home schooling is a [very real] threat to public education, I think it is so for an entirely different reason: it shows that there is a real alternative to sending your children into the hell holes that are our public schools. Obviously, having this kind of [extremely attractive] alternative threatens the State Mind Control Centres. > Funny that, the only people I've ever met who were home schooling their > kids were fundamentalist christians who objected to all kinds of > perceived immorality and wrong teaching like sex ed and evolution. In my Interesting. I have not known many home-school families, but none of the ones I _have_ known were fundamentalist christians, or for that matter, fundamentalist *anythings*. In fact, the most successful home-schooler I know is a long time cpunks member (although I haven't seen a posting from him in about a year ). > My reading of the 1st also leads me to the conclusion > that the tax-exempt status of the churches is wrong. They should pay > their fair share of the fucking property taxes like every other victim. Of course they should. But the religious communities are well organized, and present a real threat to government if pushed to the point of acting in unison, so the government has chosen (as do all such schoolyard bullies) to graze in easier pastures. For a modern example of how this works, look into the history of the Church of Scientology. > Another facet is that the well-to-do are attempting to remove their > funds from the systems so they can use those funds to educate their > children as they choose. A voucher system would surely benefit me > financially. This is a reasonable desire but it will have a negative > effect on the public school systems and a subsequent negative effect on > the society as a whole. So I must educate my children according to the public good, and not the good of the kids themselves? Fuck you. > I know the masses are a bit thick but do you > want them to be even thicker? To be frank, sending kids to public schools is practically *requiring* that they become "thick", merely in order to _survive_. > I wish there were more ( and better ) educational choices and that those > choices were reflected reasonably in the financial systems but every > proposal I've seen so far sucks moose bladder through a hairy straw. While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices should not be available. Make up your mind. > > Mike > -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From FrogRemailer at lne.com Thu Aug 30 16:07:40 2001 From: FrogRemailer at lne.com (Frog2) Date: 30 Aug 2001 23:07:40 -0000 Subject: Anonymous Posting Message-ID: <1YXV25ZB37134.0469907407@frog.nyarlatheotep.org> Tim May wrote: > I don't recall the context, but I don't have any such friends or > even acquaintances. Even those I know on the Far Right don't want to > kill _all_ Jews, just the pesky freedom-stealing ones, and the > millions who form the Zionist Occupation Government in the Zionist > Entity of ZOG-Occupied Palestine. This was the remark I had in mind: Tim May wrote on August 16, 2001: > (I know folks who think Judaism is in fact far worse, and who hope > and pray for the day when 4 million Jews in Occupied Palestine are > rounded up and liquidated. I take no position on this... I see now that "all Jews" mischaracterized your statement. My apologies. > Add nerve gases and biological agents to the mix over the next > several years. Cuts both ways, of course. If the past is any guide, mostly the innocent would die. > And I won't shed a tear, as those who left New York and Oslo and > Berlin and Phoenix to go to some tiny patch of land which they claim > YHWH the Terrible granted to the sons of a desert minor > potentate--this all revealed in a hash dream by an old man, > allegedly--well, they were fools in 1948 to kick Arabs off of their > farms and out of their homes. The Jews will suffer mightily. Which > might be all they really want, oy vey! I've known very few Jewish people who believe God gave them Israel, but it clearly has something to do with why that particular patch of land was chosen. Maybe it's the Schelling point of Zionism. The area is symbolically loaded for Jewish people, but the downside is that it's important to other people as well. Most Israelis that I've known see the religiously based Zionists as crazies, especially the ones from the U.S. Saying that Israelis are a certain way because there are people in Israel with certain views is as reasonable as saying that Jim Bell is a good guide to the cypherpunks. The exact nature of Zionism seems hard to pin down, sort of like defining a "cypherpunk". It is clear that many Zionists are not religious. > And I know many people who support, as I do of course, the right of > Aryan Nation(s) to do their thing without lawsuits from offended > Jews and liberals. Last I heard, Aryan Nation(s) was not building > any gas chambers. Shutting down the "organization" due to, for > example, the murder of Allan Berg in Denver makes no more moral or > legal sense than shutting down the Catholics because some Catholics > have bombed abortion clinics. Agreed. Many prominent Catholics have publicly declared that abortion is murder. Applying the same level of integrity as has been applied in criminal trials of technical people, this could be seen as incitement. What is insidious about charging people with organizational involvement is that it bypasses the criminal justice system. The organization itself doesn't stand trial. At the same time the members are not charged with any specfic crime. Thus, the trial can consist of little more than innuendo and the defendant stands a good chance of conviction. It is very close to simple political repression. > The Jews lacked their equivalent of a Reformation, the Lutheran and > Calvinist revolution in thinking which laid the groundwork for the > modern age. And instead of moving on, embracing the future, many of > them retreated to a desert land they thought of as their historic > homeland, never mind that more Polish blood flowed through the veins > of Jews born in Krakow than blood from their ancestors who fled or > otherwise left Palestine 1500 or more years ago. But aren't you the one bringing up the racial purity theory here? I've never known a Jewish person, and I've known many, who spent any time worrying about the genetic purity of their Jewish descent. Presumably they exist somewhere, but the breed is rare. Some Jewish people do seem to have long discussions about "What is a Jew (sic)?", but they do not seem to be genetically driven. I am having a little difficulty understanding what you mean by "embracing the future". This strikes me as a straw man, but perhaps I'm not getting your point. The Jewish community, even the Jewish religious community, does not seem to have had any problem accepting scientific discoveries, which one could describe as "embracing the future". Many Christians, Protestant and otherwise, have had serious problems in this department. For example, the theory of evolution was accepted without a fuss. Even in Jewish religious schools, the theory of evolution is taught. I think the idea behind going to Palestine and founding Israel was to find a way to not be murdered any more. After over 1000 years of abuse ending with 2/3 of the group being killed, it doesn't seem unreasonable that many of the survivors would conclude that it was unsafe to live among Europeans. My guess is that they figured they could just sort of push the Arabs aside and after a bit of fuss, everybody would get used to the idea and they'd have a country where they would have full political rights and even own land without fears of confiscation. Most peoples have done exactly the same thing at some time or other. And, there was already a sizeable Jewish population in Palestine. Do you believe that Jewish activities along these lines are more offensive than similar activities by many other people? If so, do you find them offensive because they are so recent, or is it just the unpleasant fact that American money is contributing to it? > I don't care too much if Arabs and Jews are killing each other, but > I hate like hell to see taxpayer money and armaments shipped to > ZOG-Occupied Palestine to help kill more Arabs and expand ZOG > borders. Agreed. I have better things to do with my money, too. Here's my somewhat uninformed take on the Middle East: Anything the U.S. is doing there is going to be related to oil. Support of Israel gives the U.S. cards to play with the oil producing countries. If the oil producing companies are uncooperative, Israel gets new cool weapons. If they are cooperative, then the U.S. news media start talking about the bad things the Israelis are doing. When the oil producing countries complain, the answer is probably that the Jewish lobby is so powerful that the U.S. has to support the Israelis. I believe that the Jewish lobby is powerful only to the extent that they are allowed to be. If they stood in the way of U.S. policy to any significant extent, they would be curtailed. Israel also plays a useful role for the oil producing governments - they help keep the population unified. A great deal of money flowing into the area does not benefit the populations of the countries there. For example, half of adult male Saudis are illiterate. Keeping those people focused on Israel keeps them from noticing where the money is going. Also, the rulers can accuse detractors of being Israeli spies. I do not think U.S. support for Israel has much to do with post-Holocaust compassion or with the desire to support a democracy in the Middle East or with the Jewish lobby. > And I am offended--but also amused--by the irony of European Jews > recapitulating Hitler's "lebensraum" and "Endlosung" solutions so > soon after WW II ended. Yes, Jacobo Timerman ("Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number") said the same thing a few years after he fled to Israel from Argentina. He made himself somewhat unpopular by questioning the propriety of the invasion of Lebanon. Some Israelis felt he was ungrateful. Sort of interesting because the original idea was that everybody Jewish could consider themselves Israeli and therefore gratitude would not be in order. (A comparison could be made to the Palestinian situation with respect to their alleged brother Arabs.) Anyway, there is probably a well understood psychological phenomenon at work. Once somebody is abused, they will tend to find somebody else, hopefully subordinate, to mistreat. I've wondered whether this effect isn't related to explain Henry Kissinger's criminality. Kissinger lost two relatives in the Holocaust, but in his political career he associated with and backed people with less than pristine credentials. For example, Nixon had connections to war criminals associated with the Rumanian Iron Guard. The military regimes Kissinger encouraged in South America tended to have people with a certain admiration for the Third Reich. The policies pursued in Southeast Asia bear certain similarities to those of the Nazis. Timerman, incidentally, described himself as Zionist. >> People carp about Tim, but I'd like to see anybody try to do one >> Tim May quality post every day for two weeks. > Thanks, even if you're a Jew-lover. Literally the truth, although not exclusively. ;-) From declan at well.com Thu Aug 30 20:09:25 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:09:25 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: ; from measl@mfn.org on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500 References: <20010829223838.B23860@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010830230925.A16495@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > > > But > > even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference > > between speech and action. > > Complete and utter bullshit. "Measl" sometimes posts worthy stuff, so instead of flaming him, I'll just say that much of First Amendment jurisprudence is based on the distinctions between speech and action. It is not an absolute line, of course, speech ("give me your money or else", falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, fighting words) can be suppressed, but it is a useful distinction nonetheless. -Declan From drevil at sidereal.kz Thu Aug 30 16:28:00 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 30 Aug 2001 23:28:00 -0000 Subject: Wuss-ninnies object to discussions on the list In-Reply-To: <200108301641.f7UGfmf04496@slack.lne.com> (message from Tim May on Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:39:45 -0700) References: <200108301641.f7UGfmf04496@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010830232800.19301.qmail@sidereal.kz> > You've left no impression on me. And I expect you are just another of > the anonymous or pseudonymous ranters, maybe the same one recently using > "Nomen Nescio" or "A Melon." I wonder what Senor Escobar thinks of all this. Eh Senor? We haven't heard your street-wise opinions from the great beyond in a while. As for me an Nomen Nescio, and the mysterious A Melon, you found us out! We're a gang of one or more people who do or do not know eachother or others. > Dismissible, in other words. At least I know where I stand! Perhaps this whole thing is just one person talking to himself, with Tim listening in! From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 23:45:43 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:45:43 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B8ED027.13665.A94495@localhost> -- On 29 Aug 2001, at 14:25, Faustine wrote: > Which reminds me, I don't know why people here seem to think > that any sort of "deception operation" would come from people > who show up using nyms to express unpopular opinions. (e.g. > "you said something I don't want to hear; threfore its FUD and > you're a fed.") On the contrary, a really first-rate deception > job would probably involve having someone post under their own > name and acting in apparent good faith for years, only > introducing the deceptive elements gradually, after they've had > ample time to "overtly prove themselves trustworthy" You overestimate the subtlety and sophistication of the feds. Whether Aimee is a fed or not, her quite genuine ignorance made her incapable of knowing what views sounded cypherpunkish, and what views sounded violently anti cypherpunkish. If she is a fed, she probably also goes around buying crack and pretending to be a thirteen year old interested in sex talk. And if the feds were to assign a fed to our list, that is the kind of fed they would assign. That is all they have. When the feds were infiltrating the militias, their agents stuck out like dogs balls. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Y/QUrLveFkvsuJgVfNwK1zfk+lx3s4OHlWb91sov 44d/LXT5t59pPIp0rYC0PeMqXjXBTWSpb1Nr0YApP From jamesd at echeque.com Thu Aug 30 23:45:43 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:45:43 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Re: Tim May and anonymous flames. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B8ED027.4116.A9448B@localhost> -- On 29 Aug 2001, at 16:40, Gary Jeffers wrote: > My fellow Cypherpunks, > > Some time ago Tim May flamed me and I responded with the > post: > Tim May goes bush shooting. > http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.25-2000.10.01/m > sg00388.html > . > Note: The 3rd reference was bad. The corrected reference is: > http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.18-2000.09.24/m > sg00167.html > . > > This has gotten me thinking and I have the following > observations and conjectures: > > 1. It is predictable that Tim May will be flammed. The FBI has > a > history of covertly sowing internal dissent in dissident > groups. As a leading Cypherpunk, May is an obvious target. > > 2. Anonymous flames are dirt cheap and safe for the FBI. > > 3. The FBI will do them well. By definition, the flames will be > professional :-) > > 4. The flames will be worded so as to distress the target. > > 5. The flames will be seeded with clues to imply that a > particular > Cypherpunk did them: distinctive syntax, mispellings, > phrases, > etc.. > This will help make the group ineffective. > > 6. Other leading Cypherpunks will also be targeted. > > 7. The anonymous flames will be hard to falsify in their > pointing > to a particular Cypherpunk. Again, the masterly brilliant feds. :-) Not bloody likely. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG gEr16INPZtMFBKYPp83VqROIPjrN1unJ3A2AT3+U 4u6flxJureQW4HM8sC43dM+Z3Tyf49PUeGOGaAnnp From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 30 21:50:53 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:50:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <20010830230925.A16495@cluebot.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > > > > > > > > But > > > even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference > > > between speech and action. > > > > Complete and utter bullshit. > > "Measl" sometimes posts worthy stuff, Today must be "my day"! I get a "tahnk you for the cite" from Tim, and a semi-nod from Declan. Shit, a guy could have a heart attack this way ! > so instead of flaming him, I'll > just say that much of First Amendment jurisprudence is based on the > distinctions between speech and action. It is not an absolute line, > of course, speech ("give me your money or else", falsely shouting > fire in a crowded theater, fighting words) can be suppressed, but it > is a useful distinction nonetheless. I will grant that in my red-flag state (above), I was obviously not clear, so let me make my argument clearer. My point was that we have long since departed from the long line of "jurisprudence" to which you refer above. In real terms, in the USA today, there is no difference between speech and action (from the legal point of view). I am not talking here of the theoretical way that things "should be" (and that are taught in larvae school as the way things _are_), I am talking about how it really *is*, when you are actually in the courtrooms, at the mercy of the fascists who are to "judge" you. Remember Mr. London: "He has not recanted", and "Its still posted on the internet today"... *Perfect* example. Other interesting examples are most certainly familiar to many of the members of the list - certainly I cannot be the only one of us who has had personal visits from federal badge holders because of political views expressed here? > -Declan -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 30 21:58:17 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:58:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8EB3A7.30310.39F1C0@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > (the Russian communist revolution was not a > revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for > the Sandinista revolution). I'm curious how you draw the line? I.e., what defines a genuine revolution as opposed to a "mere" coup? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From declan at well.com Thu Aug 30 21:43:16 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:43:16 -0400 Subject: Exporing Military encryption to China In-Reply-To: <200108310405.XAA00518@einstein.ssz.com>; from malcolm@nukewoody.com on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:58:27PM -0700 References: <200108310405.XAA00518@einstein.ssz.com> Message-ID: <20010831004316.A31110@cluebot.com> Politech coverage: "Feds nab two PC crypto-exporters allegedly shipping to China" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02453.html On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:58:27PM -0700, Malcolm Idaho wrote: > Customs halts export to China, charges 2 > By Jerry Seper > THE WASHINGTON TIMES > > > > Two men, one a naturalized U.S. citizen and the other a permanent > resident alien, were arrested yesterday by the U.S. Customs Service on > charges of attempting to export military encryption technology to China. Top > Stories > Bush to invest in defense > 12 Democrats do not regret role in tax cut > Military seeks means to save force structure > Construction set for N. Korea nuclear plant > Schools gird for fights over Indian names > Firetrucks dispatched to wrong locations > > Eugene You Tsai Hsu of Blue Springs, Mo., and David Tzu Wvi Yang of > Temple City, Calif., were taken into custody by undercover Customs Service > agents following a four-month investigation by the agency's Baltimore field > office. > Mr. Hsu, who became a U.S. citizen in 1999, and Mr. Yang, a Taiwan > native who is a resident alien, were accused in an affidavit of attempting > to export to China encryption devices used to safeguard classified > communications, in violation of the Arms Export Act. > A third man, identified as Charlson Ho, also was named in the > conspiracy and is believed to be in Singapore. Mr. Hsu was arrested at his > Missouri home. Mr. Yang was taken into custody at his office in Compton, > Calif. > "The technology that these individuals were attempting to export to > China is among the most sensitive items on the U.S. munitions list," said > Agent Allan Doby, who heads the Baltimore office. "The sale of these units > is so tightly controlled that the National Security Agency must approve it." > According to an affidavit by Customs Service Agent Mary Hamman, the > agency was notified May 2 by the Defense Security Service that Mr. Hsu was > attempting to purchase KIV-7HS encryption devices and user manuals for > export to China. The devices, authorized for government use only, are > designed to secure classified communications. > Ms. Hamman, in the affidavit, said Mr. Hsu sought to buy the equipment > from Mykotronx Inc., a private company located in Columbia, Md. Officials at > Mykotronx called the Customs Service office in Baltimore, which told the > firm to direct Mr. Hsu to an "intermediary representative." > That representative, an undercover Customs agent, later engaged in what > the affidavit said was a series of telephone conversations between May 2 and > Aug. 18 with Mr. Hsu, Mr. Yang and Mr. Ho, which were tape-recorded. The > telephone conversations showed that the men were working for a Singapore > firm, Wei Soon Loong Private Ltd., that wanted to buy the encryption > devices. > During the conversations, according to the affidavit, Mr. Hsu confirmed > that the end user of the encryption devices was located in China. The > affidavit does not elaborate. > Ms. Hamman wrote that Mr. Hsu, after being told that the purchase of > the equipment would be illegal and that permits to send the devices to China > could not be obtained, said he wanted to proceed anyway, suggesting to the > undercover agent that "everyone will just keep their mouths shut." > The affidavit said Mr. Hsu then suggested that the agent talk directly > with his buyer in Singapore, who would receive the equipment and forward it > to China. The agent them spoke with Mr. Ho, who also confirmed that the > equipment was bound for China. > In one conversation, the affidavit said, Mr. Ho told the undercover > agent the Chinese buyers "don't want too many people to know" about the > deal. The document said Mr. Hsu later suggested that instead of a check or > wire transfer as payment for the encryption equipment, cash would be better > "so there's no trail." > In a conversation with Mr. Yang, the affidavit said, the undercover > agent was told by Mr. Yang that he had agreed to "move the merchandise" for > Mr. Hsu and Mr. Ho, and that he "fully understands the whole situation." > "I've been doing this business for more than 20 years, I know how to > handle these problems," Mr. Yang is quoted as saying. > The affidavit said Mr. Yang told the agent the encryption equipment > would be shipped from Los Angeles through Taiwan to Singapore, where it > would then be forwarded "to the end user in China." > Mr. Hsu and Mr. Yang were not available yesterday. Wei Soon Loong, the > Singapore company, did not return calls for comment. > The maximum sentence for smuggling sensitive technology is 10 years in > prison and a $1 million fine for each violation. > Customs spokesman Dean Boyd said people or companies engaged in the > export of items included on the U.S. Munitions List to all foreign > countries, except Canada, must be registered with the State Department. In > addition, he said, persons or companies must obtain a license from the > department for each item on the list before it can be exported. From reeza at hawaii.rr.com Fri Aug 31 03:43:56 2001 From: reeza at hawaii.rr.com (Reese) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:43:56 -1000 Subject: The Tim May Question Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010831002231.03603008@pop-server.hawaii.rr.com> 4 hours later, this hasn't gotten back to me, my guess is that lne didn't accept because I'm not subscribed to that node - there went the neighborhood. Apologies if lne is having a problem and this hits the list twice - I couldn't resist adding to it a little. From pzakas at toucancapital.com Thu Aug 30 22:14:15 2001 From: pzakas at toucancapital.com (Phillip H. Zakas) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:14:15 -0400 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <20010830151659.A12544@weathership.homeport.org> Message-ID: <000001c131db$c7f64950$0300a8c0@chimera19> > Adam writes: > As far as your opinions of our business, well, I'm really uninterested > in getting into a pissing match with you. The reality is that customers > and investors give us money tp produce privacy tools, and they, not you, > are the ones I need to keep happy. The reality is that people like may and lists like this one that may help your customers and investors understand what they are and aren't getting. For example, your investors probably don't realize that you can't use zks tools for more than x% (I'm guessing 45%) of the us consumer market right off the bat because of self-imposed operating restrictions of your products (if you're not fully compatible with aol mail and web browsing, you're missing much of your usa market...btw >85% of aol users use the internal aol browser not an external browser so I doubt they will figure out how to download let alone launch an external browser and follow your arcane load/unload/re-load aol usage instructions.) plus investors probably aren't aware that limiting outlook support to 'internet only' mode cuts your outlook customer base quite a bit (I haven't seen the latest figures, but I believe a large group of outlook users configure their software for corporate/workgroup mode.) and investors probably don't realize how complex (in my opinion) the software is to set up and operate -- I'm disappointed that you've not released usage figures that I could find easily on your website (both downloads and average customer lifespan for the standard or premium products)...are people rushing to use the products? oh, and a minor point, but how much further have you cut your market share by focusing only on w2k, w98 and wme? You should correct me if I've mis-analyzed the info provided on the zks website. Anyway I don't like criticizing products per se (every products has weaknesses), but I do think criticisms lead to more aware investors/customers and perhaps even better products in the future. So in a sense it's helpful to listen to commentary from may or lists like this one. From measl at mfn.org Thu Aug 30 23:20:49 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:20:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation In-Reply-To: <3B8F25F5.D1FDF61F@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > measl at mfn.org wrote : > > > my old stuff : > >> Another facet is that the well-to-do are attempting to remove their > >> funds from the systems so they can use those funds to educate their > >> children as they choose. A voucher system would surely benefit me > >> financially. This is a reasonable desire but it will have a negative > >> effect on the public school systems and a subsequent negative effect on > >> the society as a whole. > > > >So I must educate my children according to the public good, and not the > >good of the kids themselves? Fuck you. > > > Learn to read poopyhead (isn't that now the official CP insult?). Actually, I think the currently "hip" term would be "twit" :-) > Look at the part you snipped : > > I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) > should be ruled out but you should at least think > about the implications a bit. Which, in context, is clearly a justification of what follows it. > All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. No, you did not. Nowhere was this said or implied. What you said is above, so there is no need to it here as well. > Make well > considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too > much, too quickly and poorly crafted. I am not endowed with any expertise on this topic, so I cannot make any considered judgement on the example. Having thrown out the required caveat, it seems to me that the deregulation was only a small part of the problem. Of course, I am truly talking out of my ass on this topic, so I will leave it here... > By all means let's improve the > educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid > knee-jerk approach. The fact that you consider this a "knee jerk" response does not make it so: you have no way of knowing how much or little I have looked into this topic. As someone who has had 4 kids in various public and private schools, as well as person who has personally attended two private and three public schools, I have had ample incentive to look at homeschooling when it began to cross my radar about three years ago. My beliefs regarding homeschooling are very definitely _not_ knee-jerk reactions. And my statements regarding the state of the public schools is from personal first hand experience, both as a student, and as a parent. > Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing > war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good. What "right wing war chants"? Where the hell do you get the idea I'm a right wing type of guy? Just because I believe that home schooling is a Good Thing and that the public schools are a life threatening repository of brainwashing and bad karma? Last I heard, it took a LOT more than this to qualify as "right wing". > I know the masses are a bit thick but do you > want them to be even thicker? > > > >To be frank, sending kids to public schools is practically *requiring* > >that they become "thick", merely in order to _survive_. > > > This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure > as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. Again with the knee jerk label. If it's a view you disagree with, it's a knee-jerk reaction, huh? > Sounds like the sort of > foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves. I wouldn't know, I don't have much use for Rush, and have only heard *about* his show. However, we again see the disparaging of view with which you disagree as terms such as "foolishness". This "position" is hardly persuasive. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to WHY it is so "foolish"? Perhaps you can trade some FIRST HAND information you have on the state of the public schools, so that we may more readily examine the ISSUES before us, and not your assertions that all positions you disfavor are "knee jerk reactions"? > >> I wish there were more ( and better ) educational choices and that those > >> choices were reflected reasonably in the financial systems but every > >> proposal I've seen so far sucks moose bladder through a hairy straw. > > > >While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices > >should not be available. > > > Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of > carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals > and beneficial to the community. No. Your post did make several statements which claimed to favor proposals that were fair to the community, but NOT to individuals. Personally, I think the Good Of The Many depends totally upon the Good Of The Few. The macrocosmic must fail if the microcosmic is broken. > Again, the two goals are neither > completely compatible nor mutually exclusive. While I actually agree with this assertion to a degree, I would also caveat it with (1) I can only supply a very weak degree of "confidence" in the truth of this assertion, and (2) I am unable to compellingly argue either for or against it. This type of conundrum should lead the more analytic amongst us to examine these issues on a much deeper basis, hopefully to determine what properties are impeding the discovery of the actual truth or flasity of the above premises... > >Make up your mind. > > > I have : good ideas, thumbs up, bad ideas, thumbs down. The ideas expressed above, namely the Good Of The Many outweighs the Good Of The Few: Thumbs Down. > >Yours, > >J.A. Terranson > >sysadmin at mfn.org > Fuck you back, > Mike Taken from you as an honor, and with a smile (which was much needed tonight! Thanks!). -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net Thu Aug 30 19:48:26 2001 From: secret_squirrel at nym.alias.net (Secret Squirrel) Date: 31 Aug 2001 02:48:26 -0000 Subject: pennies for IRS (or non-dumb JB) Message-ID: <20010831024826.9536.qmail@nym.alias.net> http://macontelegraph.com/content/macon/2001/08/27/local/ETHREDGE0827.htm By Rob Peecher Telegraph Staff Writer EATONTON --- Jesse Ethredge doesn't care much for President Bush, and he doesn't hesitate to say so. In fact, if you're following the 57-year-old Eatonton man down the road, you'll quickly learn just exactly what he thinks of Bush. "Don't U blame me. Thief --- Liar --- Two Faced Murderer Geo W. Bush. Hell with Bush and all damn Republicans." Those are the words printed, in plastic stick-on letters, on the back of the camper on Ethredge's truck, which is also adorned with a cartoon child urinating on the word "Republicans." Those also are the words that earned Ethredge a visit from the U.S. Secret Service last week. "They came Tuesday, wanting to ask me what did I mean by that there," Ethredge said, pointing to the slogan on his truck. "They asked me a bunch of questions, like if he was to come into my driveway, what would I tell him. I said I'd tell him to get out as fast as he come in it. ... They wanted to see if I was a danger to him." Bush has been closer to Ethredge than one might expect. During the campaign, Bush made at least two visits to Reynolds Plantation on Lake Oconee in Greene County. Ethredge said he believes the visit from the Secret Service was initiated by a man who had come to his house the week before. Ethredge, who lives on Lake Sinclair, has a car with a for sale sign on it parked in his front yard. A few days before the Secret Service came to see him, Ethredge said a man stopped at the end of his driveway. "I come out to see what he wanted; I thought he wanted to buy the car. But then he started talking about the sign and asked me if I knew I could get in trouble with the Secret Service for that. I told him if that's all he was here for, he could leave the same way he came here," Ethredge said. "If I see him again, I'll give him a mouthful." Putnam County sheriff's detective Lee Wilson confirmed it was a call from someone who had seen Ethredge's truck that brought the Secret Service to Eatonton. "We got a call from somebody who had seen his truck and noticed a sign that (the caller said) says 'murder George Bush,' " Wilson said. "I called the Secret Service, and they sent an agent down, and we interviewed (Ethredge) as a matter of policy to see what his mind-set is and if he poses any threat to the president." Wilson said Ethredge cooperated during the interview. "Although he didn't have a lot of use for (Bush), he didn't have any intentions of causing him physical harm," Wilson said. "As far as (the sheriff's office) is concerned, it's a closed matter. I don't want to speak for the Secret Service, but based on my conversation with them, they'll document having contact with (Ethredge)." It was a similar anti-Bush (though a different Bush) slogan on the same camper shell that more than a decade ago got Ethredge much attention from the media and from officials at Robins Air Force Base, where he has worked as a civilian employee for 34 years. That sign --- "Read my lips hell with Geo. Bush" --- got Ethredge a ticket charging him with "provoking speech on a truck" when he drove it onto the base April 5, 1990. The ticket was dismissed since there is no statute against "provoking language on a truck," but in October 1991, Ethredge received a letter from Col. Robert Hail, then-deputy base commander at Robins. The letter instructed Ethredge not to come onto the base with "bumper stickers or other similar paraphernalia which would embarrass or disparage the Commander in Chief." Ethredge contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, and a First Amendment lawsuit naming Hail as the defendant ensued. A U.S. district judge ruled against Ethredge, saying the base did have the power to limit bumper sticker content. Ethredge appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 11th Circuit initially ruled the case moot since Bush lost the election to Clinton. So, Ethredge says, he added a line about Bill Clinton "more or less to keep the case going." While he has no love for Republicans --- the first sign Ethredge had on a vehicle was about Ronald Reagan --- Ethredge said he didn't really have anything against Clinton. But he nonetheless added a slogan to his truck that read, "Hell with Clinton and Russian aid." The 11th Circuit then ruled against Ethredge, and the lawsuit ended there, said Gerry Weber, the ACLU attorney handling the case. "We stopped at the 11th Circuit level," Weber said. "Just within the context of a military base, people's free speech rights are as restricted or potentially more restricted than inmates in a jail." Weber said he was surprised to hear Ethredge had become, if only briefly, the subject of a Secret Service probe. After hearing the content of the new slogan, Weber said, "That doesn't sound like it warrants a Secret Service investigation." Weber also said a state statute outlawing obscene or lewd messages on bumper stickers was struck down by the state Supreme Court, so Bush supporters wishing to silence Ethredge have no recourse there. Ethredge --- who also is well known at the Putnam County Tax Commissioner's Office, where he pays his property taxes in pennies --- has not worked at Robins since 1998 when he left on a workers' compensation claim after a knee injury. He plans to retire next month. From nobody at hyperreal.pl Thu Aug 30 20:15:30 2001 From: nobody at hyperreal.pl (Anonymous) Date: 31 Aug 2001 03:15:30 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: <7e134ce5aaa8f04e97222088978ae12c@hyperreal.pl> When I saw the "general response to bombz" post with the below mentioned book, I asked my significant other to please order a copy for me, because she gets a very nice reduction on prices of books she buys as an employed of Borders Bookstore chain. She refused to enter this request into their computer system to place an order, because she claims that the store monitors orders for some categories of special orders, and reports these orders to the police as a custom of policy! Buyers of bookstores beware. -------------------------------------- Eissler, M. "A Handbook on Modern Explosives: A Practical Treatise, with Chapters on Explosives in Practical Applications" London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1897. 2nd, Enlarged, fair, illus., appendices, index. From buzzpoet at hotmail.com Fri Aug 31 02:56:51 2001 From: buzzpoet at hotmail.com (buzzpoet at hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:56:51 -0400 Subject: none Message-ID: <200108310933.CAA14923@ecotone.toad.com> ÐÏࡱál freedom. Read on... Thank you for your time and Interest. This is the letter you've been reading about in the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program described below to see, if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are, absolutely no laws prohibiting the participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless, and fun way to make some extra money at home. The results of this show have been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more as more people try it out, its been very exciting to be a part of lately. You will understand once you experience it. "HERE IT IS BELOW." ************************************************* Print This Now (IF YOU HAVE NOT already done it) for Future Reference The following income opportunity is one you may be interested in taking a look at. It can be started with VERY LITTLE investment and the income return is TREMENDOUS!!! THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEYMAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come into contact with people, do any especially hard work, and best of all, you never have to leave the house except to get the mail. Simply follow the instructions, and you really can make this happen. This e-mail order-marketing program works every time if you put in the effort to make it work. E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this non- commercialized method of advertising NOW! The longer you wait, the more savvy people will be taking your business using e-mail. Get what is rightfully yours. Program yourself for success and dare to think BIG. Sounds corny but its true. You'll never make it big if you dont have the belief system in place. ************************************************************** My name is Jonathan Rourke. 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. At that moment something significant happened in my life and I am writing to share the experience in hopes that this will change your life forever financially! In mid December of 1997, I received this program via e-mail. 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 of hundreds of thousands of dollars was too much for me to risk to see if they would work or not. One claimed that I would 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 1997 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 into debt. After I got a pencil and paper and figured it out, I would at least get my money back. But like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161 24-hrs) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal! After determining the program was Legal and not a chain letter, I decided "Why not?." Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails. It cost me about $25 for third party bulk emailing. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any money for printing to send out the program, and because all of my orders are fulfilled via e- mail, the only expense is my time or advertising costs. I am telling you like it is. I hope it doesn't turn you off, but I promised myself that I would not "rip-off" anyone, no matter how much money it cost me. Here is the basic version of what you need to do: Your first goal is to "Receive at least 20 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks of your first program going out. IF YOU DON'T, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO!" Your second goal is to "Receive at least 150 orders for report #2 within 2 weeks. IF NOT, SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. Once you have your 150 orders, relax, you've met your goal, you will make $50,000 but keep at it! If you don't get 150 right off, keep at it! It just may take some time for your down line to build, keep at it, stay focused and do not let yourself get distracted! In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for Report #1. I kept at it.. kept mailing out the program and By January 13, I had received 26 orders for Report #1. My first step in making $50,000 was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for Report #2, 46 more than I needed. So I relaxed, but kept at it mailing out programs via classified ad leads at first and then later via bulk email ads (not free like classifieds but much more effective). By March 1, three months after my e-mailing of the first 10,000 I had hit $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 CAN 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 won't work, you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work very fast ( you will make money no matter what as long as you do some mailing of programs) try to meet your goal of 20 orders for REPORT #1, and 150 orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in 90 days. If you don't reach the first two goals within two weeks, relax, you will still make a ton of money it may just take a few months or so longer. But keep mailing out programs and stay focused ! Thats the key! I am living proof that it works! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry. It really is a great opportunity with minimal 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 are in financial trouble like I was, or you want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! Sincerely, Jonathan Rourke PS Do you have any idea what 11,700 $5 bills ($58,000) looks like piled up on a kitchen table? IT'S AWESOME! Remember though, the more you send out the more potential customers you will reach. ************************************************** THINK ABOUT IT: Before you delete this program from your mailbox, as I almost did, take a little time to read it and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. Get a pencil and figure out what could happen when YOU participate. Figure out the worst possible response and no matter how you calculate it, you will still make a lot of money! You will definitely get back what you invested. Any doubts you have will vanish when your first orders come in. IT WORKS! Jody Jacobs, Richmond, VA ************************************************** HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR$ INSTRUCTIONS: This method of raising capital REALLY WORKS 100% EVERY TIME. If you get to work and stay focused on it! I am sure that you could use extra income or more in the next few months. Before you say, "NO WAY... ", please read this program carefully. This is a legal money making opportunity. Basically, this is what you do: As with all multi-level businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multi-level business partners, and we offer a product for EVERY dollar sent. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store, or office. This is the GREATEST Multi-Level Mail Order Marketing anywhere: This is what you MUST do: 1. Order all 5 reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). * For each report, send $5.00 CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a problem) to the person whose name appears on the list next to the report. * When you place your order, make sure you order each of the five reports. You will need all five reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. * Within a few days, you will receive, via e-mail, each of the five reports. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. 2. IMPORTANT-- DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than is instructed below in steps "a" through "g" or you will lose out on the majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you'll also see how it doesn't work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will not work. a. Look below for the listing of available reports. b. After you've ordered the five reports, take this Advertisement and remove the name and address under REPORT #5. This person has made it through a cycle and is no doubt on their way to $50,000 ! c. Move the name and address under REPORT #4 down to REPORT #5. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. f. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. g. Insert your name and address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you copy every name and address ACCURATELY! Copy and paste method works well. (on IBM compatibles machines highlight the text you want to move and press ctrl-C to copy it and then click where you want it to go and then hit Ctrl - V to paste it in. Or use the edit menu.) 3. Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names, and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to the Instruction portion of this letter. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing (surely you can afford $25!). You obviously already have an Internet Connection and e-mail, which you use to fill your orders its basically FREE! To assist you with marketing your business on the Internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e- mails, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much, much more. There are two primary methods of building your down line: METHOD #1: SENDING BULK E-MAIL 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 only 2,000 programs each. Let's also assume that the mailing receives a 0.5% response. Using a good list, the response could be much better. Also, many people will send out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of 2,000. But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a 0.5% 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 0.5%, 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 people mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000. The 0.5% 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 0.5% response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That amounts to 10,000 each of $5 bills for you in CASH MONEY! Then think about level five! Your total income in this example would be $50 $500 $5,000 $50,000 for a total of $55,550 ! REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU MAIL TO WILL DO "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HALF-SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF 2,000. Believe me, MANY people will do just that, and more! REPORT #2 will show you the best methods for bulk e-mailing, and email software. METHOD #2 - PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET 1. Classified Advertising on the web via message boards/ classified sites is very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to place ads. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Assume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE classified ads on the Internet will EASILY get a larger response). Also, assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 down line members. Follow this example to achieve the STAGGERING results Below (same as email example): 1st level-your 10 members with $5............... $50 2nd level-10 members from those 10 ($5 x 100)....$500 3rd level-10 members from those 100 ($5 x1,000) $5,000 4th level-10 members from those 1,000 ($5 x 10k) $50,000 THIS TOTALS............................. ........$55,550 5th level-10 members from those 10,000 ($5 x 100k)???,???! Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruits 10 people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Many people get 100's of participants! THINK ABOUT IT! For every $5.00 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the report they ordered. THAT'S IT! ALWAYS TRY TO PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON ALL ORDERS! This will GUARANTEE that the e-mail THEY send out, with YOUR name and address on it, will be prompt. AVAILABLE REPORTS ---------------------------------------------------------- *** Order Each REPORT by NUMBER and NAME *** Notes: - ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT CHEQUES ARE NOT ACCEPTED - ALWAYS SEND YOUR ORDER VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL - Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least two sheets of paper (IF NOT MORE SO THAT THE BILL(s) CAN'T BE SEEN AGAINST LIGHT) - On one of those sheets of paper, include: (a) the number & name of the report you are ordering (b)your e-mail address (c) your name & postal address (as return address in case the post office encounters problems). PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW: Report #1 "The insider's Guide to Advertizing for free on the Internet." ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Eric Allen 999 Westchester RD South Park, PA 15129 _______________________________________ REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet." ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Maria Thibodeau PO Box 2294 Edgartown, MA 02539 __________________________________________________ REPORT #3 "The Insider's Guide to Multilevel Marketing on the Internet." ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: JC Cosi 17760 Candlewood Terrace Boca Raton, FL 33487 _______________________________________________ REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionare utilzing the Internet." ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Andrew Moss 5959 Natchez Rd Riverside CA, 92509 ________________________________________________ REPORT #5 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet Part II" ORDER REPORT #5 FROM: Don Harpo 3028 Ridgeland Dr Jackson, MS 39212 _________________________________________________ About 50,000 new people get online every month! ******* TIPS FOR SUCCESS ******* * TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. * Send for the five reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because: * When you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. * ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICES ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. * Be patient and persistent with this program. If you follow the instructions exactly, your results WILL BE SUCCESSFUL! * ABOVE ALL, HAVE FAITH IN YOURSELF AND KNOW YOU WILL SUCCEED! ******* YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ******* Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: Start posting ads as soon as you mail off for the reports! By the time you start receiving orders, your reports will be in your mailbox! For now.. something simple, such as posting on message boards something to the effect of "Would you like to know how to earn 50,000 working out of your house with NO initial investment? Email me with the keywords "more info" to find out how." ---- and when they email you , send them this report in response! If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, keep at it, continue advertising or sending bulk e- mails UNTIL YOU DO. Then, a few weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT#2. If you don't, continue advertising or sending e-mails UNTIL YOU DO. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, but continue to keep at it! Cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you. If you want to generate more income, send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is virtually no limit to the income you will generate from this business! Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program. Please answer one question..... DO YOU "WANT" TO CHANGE YOUR LIFE? If the answer is yes, please look at the following facts about this program: 1. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE! 2. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO SHIP! 3. YOU ARE SELLING A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT COST YOU ANYTHING TO ADVERTISE (except for bulk mailing costs if using that method)! 4. YOU ARE UTILIZING THE POWER OF THE INTERNET AND THE POWER OF MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING TO DISTRIBUTE YOUR PRODUCT ALL OVER THE WORLD! 5. YOUR ONLY EXPENSES OTHER THAN YOUR INITIAL $25 AND BULK MAILING COST INVESTMENT IS YOUR TIME! 6. VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE INCOME YOU GENERATE FROM THIS PROGRAM IS PURE PROFIT! 7. THIS PROGRAM REALY CAN CHANGE YOUR LIFE . ******* T E S T I M O N I A L S ******* This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY! Especially the rule of not trying to place your name in a different position, it won't work and you'll lose a lot of potential income. I'm living proof that it works. It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money, with little cost to you. If you do choose to participate, follow the program exactly, and you'll be on your way to financial security. Stay focused on this program, don't let yourself get distracted stay focused on this program! Steven Bardfield, Portland, OR ****************************************************** My name is Mitchell. My wife, Jody, and I live in Chicago, IL. I am a cost accountant with a major U.S. Corporation and I make pretty good money. When I received the program, I grumbled to Jody about receiving "junk mail." I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved. I "knew" it wouldn't work. Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and jumped in with both feet. I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old "I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work... well, the laugh was on me! Within two weeks, she had received over 50 responses. Within 105 days, she had received over $47,200 in $5 bills! I was shocked! I was sure that I had it all figured and that it wouldn't work. I AM a believer now. I have joined Jody in her "hobby." I did have seven more years until retirement, but I think of the "rat race" and it's not for me. We owe it all to network marketing (MLM). Mitchell Wolf MD., Chicago, IL ****************************************************** The main reason for this letter is to convince you that this system is honest, lawful, extremely profitable, and is a way to get a large amount of money in a short time. I was approached several times before I checked this out. I joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received $36,470.00 in the first 14 weeks, with money still coming in. If you are already in the program and haven't made at least this much, its because you need to stay ACTIVE! This thing is awesome, i did it, anyone can do it! Charles Morris, Esq. *************************************************** Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan. But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back. Boy, was I surprised when I found my medium-size post office box crammed with orders! For awhile, it got so overloaded that I had to start picking up my mail at the window. I'll make more money this year than any 10 years of my life before. The nice thing about this deal is that it doesn't matter where people live. There simply isn't a better investment for what it allows you, personal freedom. Paige Willis, Des Moines, IA ************************************************** I had received this program before. I deleted it, but later I wondered if I shouldn't have given it a try. Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed another program. Eleven months passed then it came...I didn't delete this one!!! I made more than $41,000. This is for real, get to work. Violet Wilson, Johnstown, PA **************************************************** We have quit our jobs, and will soon buy a home on the beach and live off the interest on our money. The only way on earth that this plan will work for you is if you do it. For your sake, and for your family's sake don't pass up this golden opportunity. Good luck and happy spending! Kerry Ford, Centerport, NY *************************************************** ORDER YOUR REPORTS AND GET STARTED ON YOUR ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! *************************************************** FOR YOUR INFORMATION: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal agency) 1-(800)827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax requirements. IT IS TOTALLY UP TO YOU NOW!!! CAN YOU HANDLE SUCCESS AND ALL THAT MONEY??? ****************************************************** Under Bills.1618 Title III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered spam as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. No request for removal is necessary as this is a one time e-mail transmission. **************************************************** qmps From password at gamespy.com Fri Aug 31 07:05:22 2001 From: password at gamespy.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?password@gamespy=2Ecom?=) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:05:22 -0700 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?GameSpyID_Password_Reminder?= Message-ID: <14052013893720@ntmail.gamespy.com> Hi, cypherpunks at toad.com. You requested your password for GameSpyID. Your password is: cypherpunk Your password was requested from the IP address 171.69.177.113. If you did not request your password and you have received this email, don't worry, neither your email address nor your password has been sent to anyone else. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us at support at gamespyarcade.com. From imagenesystands at hotmail.com Fri Aug 31 03:09:33 2001 From: imagenesystands at hotmail.com (Soluciones para Exposiciones) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:09:33 -0300 Subject: Soluciones para Exposiciones y Eventos Message-ID: <25122-22001853110933120@hotmail.com> At.:Sr. Grte. Comercial - Para visualizar correctamente este e-mail debeposeer activa su conexi�n a internet. �Participar�Pr�ximamente en una Exposici�n? Nosotrosle presentamos Excelentes Soluciones conuna M�nima Inversi�n. Relice suspedidos o aclare sus dudas comunic�ndose a: promoeventos at fibertel.com.ar Tel/fax: desdeArgentina (011) 4942-0247 / desde otros pa�ses (54-11) 4942-0247 Paraser removido de nuestra lista enviar un e-mail a imagenesystands at hotmail.com escribiendo s�lo Removeren Subject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2526 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 05:39:19 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:39:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8EB3A7.30310.39F1C0@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > All the liberty that there is in the world today results from the > Dutch revolt, the Glorious Revolution, and the American > Revolution. No oppressive regimes, with the exception of the > Chinese, were produced by revolution. The Chinese are STILL in a revolution you twit - Taiwan. > Every successful revolution has been a major step forward for > human liberty (the Russian communist revolution was not a > revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for > the Sandinista revolution). Africa (eg DRC), Pole Pot, Idi Amin, Shah, Mujahadin, E. Timor ... Recasting history to suite yourself won't fly. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From password at gamespy.com Fri Aug 31 07:50:11 2001 From: password at gamespy.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?password@gamespy=2Ecom?=) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:50:11 -0700 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?GameSpyID_Password_Reminder?= Message-ID: <14500707598271@ntmail.gamespy.com> Hi, cypherpunks at toad.com. You requested your password for GameSpyID. Your password is: cypherpunk Your password was requested from the IP address 171.69.177.113. If you did not request your password and you have received this email, don't worry, neither your email address nor your password has been sent to anyone else. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us at support at gamespyarcade.com. From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 05:58:06 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:58:06 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | MS Security: On A Path As Clear As It Is Reliable Message-ID: <3B8F89DE.F151F6E0@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/30/2247211.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 05:59:17 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:59:17 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Spammers Stoop To New Low Message-ID: <3B8F8A25.4BCAE76C@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/31/012255.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 06:00:58 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:00:58 -0500 Subject: The Register - Security software: blind lead blind Message-ID: <3B8F8A8A.D7B951@ssz.com> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21384.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at einstein.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 06:03:31 2001 From: ravage at einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:03:31 -0500 Subject: NYPOST.COM National News: D.C. PROTEST ?FENCE' COULD STRETCH FOR MILES By DEBORAH ORIN Message-ID: <3B8F8B23.D359B090@ssz.com> http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31953.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From frissell at panix.com Fri Aug 31 05:05:07 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:05:07 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <20010830230925.A16495@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010831071352.0325ec60@frissell@brillig.panix.com> At 11:50 PM 8/30/01 -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: >My point was that we have long since departed from the long line of >"jurisprudence" to which you refer above. In real terms, in the USA >today, there is no difference between speech and action (from the legal >point of view). I am not talking here of the theoretical way that things >"should be" (and that are taught in larvae school as the way things >_are_), I am talking about how it really *is*, when you are actually in >the courtrooms, at the mercy of the fascists who are to "judge" you. So why the Nuremberg Files case? A *civil* case not even criminal. Jake Baker. The "nazis" driving a fair housing activist out of Pennsylvania (again no charges brought). the Cross Burning case. Etc. Any specifics? DCF ---- "Money is not speech." -- Campaign finance reform cliche. Money may not be speech but the First Amendment also protects freedom of the press; and presses have always cost money (Ben Franklin's print shop cost him more than 100 pounds). And freedom of the press belongs to everyone, not just the "official" media. From measl at mfn.org Fri Aug 31 06:21:45 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:21:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote: > When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters > in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. > > Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of > enlightened government supporting individual liberties? No. Would that chnge my assertion that he is "a freedom fighter"? Also no. His is fighting for the freedom of his peoples to follow the path that THEY so choose (whether or not I find that path to be a personally acceptable one is morally irrelevant). > The man is a > religious fanatic. As is George Bush and half the congresscritters. As have been a great number of supreme court "justices". As are a very large number of "minor" court "justices". Painting your target with this brush does nothing to forward your argument. > He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan, > which he helped put into power. Along with the very considerable help of these United States of Fscist Freakazoids. > This is the same Taliban which has > destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic, We've never done anything like that now, have we? > forbids women to work or attend school, Granted, we've gotten somewhat better in this respect, but then we've had a longer period to try - and yet we are _still_ a helluva bad example (using the rest of the "free world" as a backdrop). > and sends armed police to attack > when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors. And we send in armed police to attack when they see a ranch they might like to own through a forfeiture setup. Or when the "know" of men and men "eating" behind closed doors, etc. You are listing off a menu of items that we as a whole may consider to be unacceptable, and then attempting to transfer this distaste to the target of your disaffections. This is both a normal and IMHO, acceptable practice (seen as a simple promulgation of ones personal opinions). However, using this personal distate as an indicator that the rest of the world somehow aggrees with you (apparently in direct proportion to the level of distate expressed), is bogus. > Oh, and last week they banned the Internet. At least they are being HONEST about it, no? Here (USA) we are making every attempt toeffectively implement the same policy, although via different means ("chilling" such use with the arresting of victims by your hated armed police, mock trials and very heavy sentences). > Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks In very many ways, there is not a better example that could have been picked. > We're definitely not seeing the same "big picture" if you think he is > a good example of someone cypherpunks should support. Agreed. Your picture is personal in the extreme, where as your tormentor is looking in the global, and with smaller blinders. May I suggest some light reading? "The Clash Of Civilizations and the Remaking Of World Order" by Samuel P. Huntington, $14.00 in trade paperback, ISBN 0-684-84441-9 -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From measl at mfn.org Fri Aug 31 06:24:47 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:24:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010830225141.00a1f250@pop.earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Paul Pomes wrote: > At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, wrote: > >> But > >> even given the tattered First Amendment, there is still a difference > >> between speech and action. > > > >Complete and utter bullshit. > > And complete and utter loss of reputation capital on your part. It disagrees > 100% with my interactions with law enforcement. If you wish to make point, at > least make it believable. It may well disagree 100% with YOUR interactions, however, that does not imply in any way that others have had the same experience. As for believeability, I don't give a rats ass if you, in the personal sense, believe me, Gloria Steinem, Matt Blaze, or any other asshole on the planet. > /pbp -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From nobody at dizum.com Thu Aug 30 23:30:18 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:30:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Tim May writes: > And in both of these examples I gave, "Nomen Nescio" took a literal > reading of the examples. "But Ireland is not a communist regime!" "But > they are not Jews!" > > Examples, like the half dozen I gave, are designed to convey to the > reader the range of uses, needs, and justifications. The specific stands > for the general. > > Both Nomen and Aimee are remarkably block-headed in seeing the big > picture. You need to read your own posting more carefully: > Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools > for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet > spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters > in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control > information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in > Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad > governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, > think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > forbidden to. You yourself were the one who raised the issue of morality. Your examples were intended to be cases of "sweet spot" (that is, profitable) applications which were also morally acceptable. It is entirely appropriate in that context to examine whether these examples meet the test of both being profitable and moral. When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of enlightened government supporting individual liberties? The man is a religious fanatic. He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which he helped put into power. This is the same Taliban which has destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic, forbids women to work or attend school, and sends armed police to attack when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors. Oh, and last week they banned the Internet. Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks. We're definitely not seeing the same "big picture" if you think he is a good example of someone cypherpunks should support. From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 31 08:44:46 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:44:46 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <200108301704.f7UH4tf04912@slack.lne.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010830094443.00865100@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010831084446.0086aa30@pop.sprynet.com> At 10:02 AM 8/30/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Alas, the marketing of such "dissident-grade untraceability" is >difficult. Partly because anything that is dissident-grade is also >pedophile-grade, money launderer-grade, freedom fighter-grade, >terrorist-grade, etc. > >--Tim May How about a marketing/psyop campaign promoting "Mistress Grade" crypto, and get licensing rights for the Chandra Levy images... or "Congressional-Diary Grade" crypto if Packwood will do cameos... From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 06:06:11 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:06:11 -0400 Subject: Secret firearms regulation, social science meeting in DC today Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010831090515.0212a5d0@mail.well.com> HEALTH Institute of Medicine's Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education Committee on Law and Justice Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms meeting, August 30-31. Highlights: 8:30 a.m. - Closed session with summary posted after meeting Location: National Academy of Sciences Building, 2100 C St., NW. 8:30 a.m. Contact: Lecia Quarles, 202-334-1844, lquarles at nas.edu From fisherm at tce.com Fri Aug 31 07:10:24 2001 From: fisherm at tce.com (Fisher Mark) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:10:24 -0500 Subject: speech + action Message-ID: >Look at how AP was used. Mike, the main reason the Jim Bell prosecution started was his actions, not his words. Some of us on the list (myself included) would be majorly upset if a stink bomb strong enough to make us vomit was used on us (upset enough to want someone to take action against Jim Bell). Had Jim Bell restrained himself to speech, prosecution would have been much more difficult to start. Not impossible, but much more difficult. No government is going to be perfect, as they all must rely on us imperfect humans for implementation. However, the tradition in the United States has been to restrain the government from doing any old thing it likes. This doesn't mean that our government will always be fair and just -- it just means the tendency is strongly that way. Most other nations are not nearly so fortunate. Just because we as a nation have suffered through injustices like Ruby Ridge does not necessarily mean that we on the downward spiral to where such cases are the norm. It does mean, as it always has, that the fight for justice and right must be made anew by each generation. =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm at tce.com Thomson Consumer Electronics Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_ From fisherm at tce.com Fri Aug 31 07:22:19 2001 From: fisherm at tce.com (Fisher Mark) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:22:19 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: >When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters >in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest to track down and kill Afghans who converted to Christianity and are now preaching the Word. Tools are tools -- the uses are what we make of them. If you don't want to create tools that can be used for evil, then you must forgo the making of tools. Crypto anarchy is coming -- we had best prepare for it, lest it overwhelm us. In the end, I believe that it will result in more freedom for more people, by restraining those in government from doing any silly thing they like to us. Although I see many people complain about the excesses of corporations, in about every case I can think of the harm they did was enabled by the collusion of government officials. If you can restrain the actions of government (by crypto anarchy, voting "the rascals out of office", or whatever), you will generally improve the amount of freedom people have to live their lives. =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm at tce.com Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_ From fisherm at tce.com Fri Aug 31 07:22:19 2001 From: fisherm at tce.com (Fisher Mark) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:22:19 -0500 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: >When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters >in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest to track down and kill Afghans who converted to Christianity and are now preaching the Word. Tools are tools -- the uses are what we make of them. If you don't want to create tools that can be used for evil, then you must forgo the making of tools. Crypto anarchy is coming -- we had best prepare for it, lest it overwhelm us. In the end, I believe that it will result in more freedom for more people, by restraining those in government from doing any silly thing they like to us. Although I see many people complain about the excesses of corporations, in about every case I can think of the harm they did was enabled by the collusion of government officials. If you can restrain the actions of government (by crypto anarchy, voting "the rascals out of office", or whatever), you will generally improve the amount of freedom people have to live their lives. =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm at tce.com Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2351 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 31 09:24:26 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:24:26 -0700 Subject: speech + action In-Reply-To: <3B8F1EA4.948851AE@lsil.com> Message-ID: <200108311627.f7VGRaf12025@slack.lne.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 10:20 PM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > Tim, > > It's not easy to find great links but I still say that speech + action > is something that a prosecutor can use to the disadvantage of the > accused even if the speech is legal and the action appears to be > ineffectual or undirected. Look at how AP was used. 18 U.S.C. 23 1 seems > to link speech directly with the action of paramilitary training, even > if there is no specific target. The speech portion of the offense > enables a heavy response to the otherwise unpunishable action. Whether > or not anyone has been convicted under this statute there it sits, ready > to pounce. Which is why I asked for you some actual cases. I pointed out that--so far as I have heard--there have been _no_ prosecutions for "paramilitary training." (There may have been some paramilitary types busted for firing AK-47s, for trespassing, whatever. This is why I listed these as exceptions.) Bell's AP was not one of the charges in his case. > > Admittedly these are weak cites but I do think the ( > legal_but_unpopular_speech + unpunishable_action = crime ) idea is > embodied in laws. I think eventually it'll somehow get extended to > address the cyberterrordangerouslyeducatedchaosprogrammerdeaththreat > that faces each and every freedom-loving, net-browsing Amurrican today! > > Maybe the pro bono brigade of the unorganized, non-organizational, > casually associational, non-paramilitary, non-coding, non-militia, > profusely verbal cypherpunks flying circus will chime in with some fun > stuff. No point in going round and round. I don't think even the U.S.G. has this power that you think it does, and I cite the non-prosecution of many right-wing groups as evidence. When busts have occurred, other alleged crimes were involved, like trespassing, violations of gun laws, etc. > http://www.sfgate.com/okc/winokur/0423.html > > http://www.vpc.org/studies/awapara.htm > > In 1986, the ADL formulated model state legislation that would ban > paramilitary training "aimed at provoking civil disorder."[104] In > drafting the model bill, the ADL specifically stated that the statute > must not violate First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Well, the ADL is made up mostly of Jews, and Jews have extraordinarily anti-liberty views. If the Jews ran our country...wait a minute, they do. Never mind. (P.S. Just kidding. The ADL and B'nai Brith and Jews for the Confiscation of Firearms have not succeeded in getting thoughtcrimes banned the way they had hoped. And Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Rights are actively campaigning on the other side.) --Tim May From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 31 09:26:54 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:26:54 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010831092654.0086fb80@pop.sprynet.com> At 02:41 PM 8/30/01 -0400, Faustine wrote: >And by the way, if you're going to question >SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge >for selling a boatload of the Freedom beta to the NSA in 1999 as well. What >did they think they wanted it for, farting around on Usenet? I bet they had >that sucker reverse-engineered and compromised in two minutes flat. Were you intending to insult ZK authors[1]? The spooks would have studied the tool and its design, and set up a test net to study the traffic. Depending on their resources and the interesting-ness of the ZK-using 'targets in the field' they would have thought about what can be recovered from observations and interventions. As they do with everything, from code to routers. Maybe they would, in 2 minutes, look at it and say, "oh, well, they used the Foobar library's implementation of RSA, and we know how to exploit a bug in that version, and can leverage that to break their scheme, so all their zero knowledge is ours". Or "lookee here, they didn't check a buffer overflow and we can 0wn their nodes" But exploration takes time, especially for a system designed from start to resist. Unless you think they're magic. [1] I'm not one, nor do I know any From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 06:29:01 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:29:01 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: ; from measl@mfn.org on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:50:53PM -0500 References: <20010830230925.A16495@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010831092901.A21554@cluebot.com> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:50:53PM -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: > today, there is no difference between speech and action (from the legal > point of view). I am not talking here of the theoretical way that things > "should be" (and that are taught in larvae school as the way things > _are_), I am talking about how it really *is*, when you are actually in > the courtrooms, at the mercy of the fascists who are to "judge" you. It is reasonable to note the distinction between theory and practice. > Remember Mr. London: "He has not recanted", and "Its still posted on the > internet today" I'm aware of this; I mentioned it in a Politech message yesterday, which you may have seen: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02455.html > Other interesting examples are most certainly familiar to many of the > members of the list - certainly I cannot be the only one of us who has had > personal visits from federal badge holders because of political views > expressed here? But, as I've said before, both CJ and Bell crossed a visible line. I'm not saying that the location of that speech-vs-action line exists is good, but it is clear enough. Tim doesn't cross it and neither do just about all the rest of the posters here. If badge holders don't like what you write, well, Duncan has told you repeatedly not to answer their questions. Bell was just getting plain weird at the end: http://cryptome.org/jdb040901-2.htm A. I would like to precede my answer with a comment that yesterday Mr. Leen delivered a death threat to me on behalf of the federal government against myself and six other members of my family if I talked about certain things that happened in 1997 to me at Pierce County and Kitsap County Jail. -Declan From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 31 09:34:58 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:34:58 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010831093458.0086a140@pop.sprynet.com> At 02:52 PM 8/30/01 -0400, Faustine wrote: > >And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are >willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their >betas to the NSA, you never will. > >~Faustine. If knowledge of how something works breaks it, it wasn't worth having. No security gained through obscurity. You have to assume NSA can examine any code they want to. Regular Kevin Mitnicks, them. From drevil at sidereal.kz Fri Aug 31 02:41:56 2001 From: drevil at sidereal.kz (Dr. Evil) Date: 31 Aug 2001 09:41:56 -0000 Subject: Exporing Military encryption to China In-Reply-To: <20010831004316.A31110@cluebot.com> (message from Declan McCullagh on Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:43:16 -0400) References: <200108310405.XAA00518@einstein.ssz.com> <20010831004316.A31110@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010831094156.8632.qmail@sidereal.kz> Does anyone know why this KIV-7 thing is so super-seekrit, or why the Chinese would want it so badly that they paid to smuggle them? It is made by Mykotronx, the same guys who made the Clipper chips. From what I could find about it, it just sounds like a super-secure VPN box that can basically encrypt T1s and satellite links. It is TEMPEST-spec. I couldn't find out exactly what kind of encryption alg it uses, but is it likely to be any better than AES? It does have some great features, like removable keys, and it probably has some amount of tamper-resistance, but it's still not doing anything more than VPNing, but at a telco layer, not an IP layer. Surely the Chinese could have gotten the same functionality with a couple of OpenBSD boxes with ipsec? Maybe it wouldn't be as nice of a package, but it would be a lot cheaper. Or maybe they were hoping to find some backdoor in it? Seems unlikely that there is one in this product. Hey, for a good time, you can go to the KIV-7 conference at the Golden Nugget hotel, January 15-17. Maybe I'll see you there. In these cases, I always wonder, "what's the real story?" From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 06:44:02 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:44:02 -0400 Subject: Exporing Military encryption to China In-Reply-To: <20010831094156.8632.qmail@sidereal.kz>; from drevil@sidereal.kz on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:41:56AM -0000 References: <200108310405.XAA00518@einstein.ssz.com> <20010831004316.A31110@cluebot.com> <20010831094156.8632.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <20010831094402.A21665@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:41:56AM -0000, Dr. Evil wrote: > Does anyone know why this KIV-7 thing is so super-seekrit, or why the > Chinese would want it so badly that they paid to smuggle them? It is > made by Mykotronx, the same guys who made the Clipper chips. From > what I could find about it, it just sounds like a super-secure VPN box > that can basically encrypt T1s and satellite links. It is Are you sure? Looks like it's a crypto-unit that handles WAN functions as well and can be plugged into a router: http://www.rainbow.com/mykoweb/lan_rout.pdf -Declan From jamesd at echeque.com Fri Aug 31 09:47:32 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:47:32 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B8F5D34.21690.2D03FB9@localhost> -- On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:52, Faustine wrote: > And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are > willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to > sell their betas to the NSA, you never will. There is nothing wrong with selling betas to the NSA. I make my crypto source code available to the NSA, and to everyone else. Everyone should do this. Anyone that fails to do that is up to no good. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 67dYNaWosvJqHSU041w2pF90I0cE+VHfMhQxInsf 4Is1TS6sNGfG1fhrdBPgbEbNEPYuv+XqX9gM0Ua0i From jamesd at echeque.com Fri Aug 31 09:47:32 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:47:32 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B8F5D34.31069.2D03FC3@localhost> -- On 30 Aug 2001, at 14:41, Faustine wrote: > Of course it has a trap door, that's probably the whole point > of getting it over there in the first place. And by the way, if > you're going to question SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you > might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge for selling a boatload of > the Freedom beta to the NSA in 1999 as well. What did they > think they wanted it for, farting around on Usenet? I bet they > had that sucker reverse-engineered and compromised in two > minutes flat. Stands to reason. I think it most unlikely that they could compromise rot-13 in two minutes flat, and as for reverse engineering, any decent crypto system makes its engineering publicly available, so that reverse engineering is quite unnecessary. No one should ever use a system that has to be reverse engineered. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vmwKl1+31thMlrC2hl4XzwiD6EPSMqrBX8OqN5J0 4qFXhFjCIcqlGNHPzxbUC4Kfz95pkdg5H60E8+j1v From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 06:58:50 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:58:50 -0400 Subject: Exporing Military encryption to China In-Reply-To: <20010831094156.8632.qmail@sidereal.kz>; from drevil@sidereal.kz on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:41:56AM -0000 References: <200108310405.XAA00518@einstein.ssz.com> <20010831004316.A31110@cluebot.com> <20010831094156.8632.qmail@sidereal.kz> Message-ID: <20010831095850.B21665@cluebot.com> Ah, this seems to be the IP encryptor of choice: https://infosec.navy.mil/PRODUCTS/CRYPTO/KIV-21.html -Declan On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:41:56AM -0000, Dr. Evil wrote: > Does anyone know why this KIV-7 thing is so super-seekrit, or why the > Chinese would want it so badly that they paid to smuggle them? It is > made by Mykotronx, the same guys who made the Clipper chips. From > what I could find about it, it just sounds like a super-secure VPN box > that can basically encrypt T1s and satellite links. It is > TEMPEST-spec. I couldn't find out exactly what kind of encryption alg > it uses, but is it likely to be any better than AES? It does have > some great features, like removable keys, and it probably has some > amount of tamper-resistance, but it's still not doing anything more > than VPNing, but at a telco layer, not an IP layer. Surely the > Chinese could have gotten the same functionality with a couple of > OpenBSD boxes with ipsec? Maybe it wouldn't be as nice of a package, > but it would be a lot cheaper. Or maybe they were hoping to find some > backdoor in it? Seems unlikely that there is one in this product. > > Hey, for a good time, you can go to the KIV-7 conference at the Golden > Nugget hotel, January 15-17. Maybe I'll see you there. > > In these cases, I always wonder, "what's the real story?" From jamesd at echeque.com Fri Aug 31 10:17:26 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:17:26 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <3B8EB3A7.30310.39F1C0@localhost> Message-ID: <3B8F6436.22971.2EBA01F@localhost> -- James A. Donald: > > (the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but > > merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the > > Sandinista revolution). measl at mfn.org > I'm curious how you draw the line? I.e., what defines a > genuine revolution as opposed to a "mere" coup? A revolution involves mass participation, and widespread spontaneous defiance of state authority. A coup involves a tiny little secretive conspiracy. A coup is announced, a revolution experienced. Few proletarians in Russia had heard of the communists, until they learnt they were the government. There was a real revolution in Russia, but many people felt the revolution had failed, since the new government was still trying to prosecute the war, and was still dominated by the rather small group that had been dominant under the Tzar. Then there was a coup by an even smaller group against this new regime. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG OB/GOuA4JAkfxP4knqOf5CtzmUwMdXLvcPtU4zod 4lAQXXdyE53P/QtVYnhCF2kjXLT0G14uFiMkmFHZE From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 31 10:19:39 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:19:39 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <200108301952.f7UJqEf06261@slack.lne.com> References: <3B8E9720.76A8EBBE@lsil.com> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010831101939.00860a50@pop.sprynet.com> On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 12:42 PM, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >> Can that twisted reasoning be applied to advocating >> the use of code to obsolete the government and then actually creating >> code? 'Twisted reasoning' could lead to anything, so its not too useful to use it as a constraint. A stray bayonet-mount could turn your code into assault software... That being said: There are *no* tools which are useful *only* for powering down government. File sharing tools are useful; that they also erode copyright is collateral damage. Anonymous systems are useful. That you can build AP systems, or worse, spam with them, is collateral damage. 'Damage' of course implies a value system where copyright is good and AP is bad. Side-effect is a more neutral term. At 12:49 PM 8/30/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >Assuming your hypo, there is little protection in the "Alice talks, Bob >codes" solution, if Alice and Bob associate. For a conspiracy charge, >the fact that some talk and some build things is not important. Besides, code *is* speech. Though some men who wear black dresses during office hours have trouble digesting that. From frissell at panix.com Fri Aug 31 07:27:18 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:27:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation In-Reply-To: <3B8F25F5.D1FDF61F@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. Make well > considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too > much, too quickly and poorly crafted. By all means let's improve the > educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid > knee-jerk approach. Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing > war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good. Since we don't depend on the government for food, steel, concrete, or medical care (60% private money not much actual government acre delivery); why would we think that teaching by government employees would be efficient. We can argue about payment later (although taxing the poor to pay for the college education of the rich seems unfair), but no rational person can argue that socialist provision of services is superior to market provision in case like this. > This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure > as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. Sounds like the sort of > foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves. I can pick any public school teacher at random and cross ex them on the stand and establish that they don't know diddly squat. The concept that one should institutionalize one's children for 8 hours a day so that public officials can attempt to modify their knowledge, understanding, and physical and psychological deportment is the worst kind of child abuse. At future war crimes trials America's parents will have to answer for their crimes. (For those of you who attended slave schools, that last is a joke.) Can you seriously argue that governments do a better job of education or that it's safe to trust them with the souls (in the religious and non-religious sense) of the innocent. Apart from everything else one can say, attending slave schools subjects the child and the family to the full force of government record keeping. If you are not on the dole and you have no children in slave schools, your chances of having any sort of interaction with the minions of the coercive state apparatus are very substantially reduced. Much safer. > >While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices > >should not be available. Yes, just like the employment choice of "slavery" should not be available because it's wrong (at least within my proprietary community). > Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of > carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals > and beneficial to the community. Again, the two goals are neither > completely compatible nor mutually exclusive. What's the community got to do with it? I should give up money and children because people who are demonstrably stupider than I am think it would be a good idea? I don't give barbers who can't cut my hair the way I want my money or my hair. Why on earth should I do it to my children? The slave school teachers of those making that argument did at least that part of their work well. DCF From jya at pipeline.com Fri Aug 31 10:35:27 2001 From: jya at pipeline.com (John Young) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:35:27 -0700 Subject: Borders UK and privacy In-Reply-To: <3B8F83F9.48EB2ED6@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> References: <20010829232933.C24387@cluebot.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010830103051.02226670@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <200108311442.KAA16116@maynard.mail.mindspring.net> Ken Brown bragged: >OTOH I know people who have sampled the air in underground stations for >spores and bacteria so on. There are a lot of odd organisms down there >:-) A skivvied MoD scientist from Portland Downs raced past me ogling Buckingham in my red plaid tam and matching sweater, whispered, "you ugly fuck," and sliced a sample of my nose for cloning a least beloved cousin, and my half-blind soused SO yelled at the one-legged runner "Markov, help Bear Hatted Bobby, 'e pelleted him." BHB twitched, 'is nose twitched, by God in truth, in Morse, "cow." If you saw the fighting for seats we saw in the London Underworld you'd nere doubt how much skin and hair is afloat, and the skinning of the tourists with double ugly cashmere and Monty Python legends and Beatle-mania ad nauseum aint odd it's royal history. From adam at homeport.org Fri Aug 31 07:39:35 2001 From: adam at homeport.org (Adam Shostack) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:39:35 -0400 Subject: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <200108310417.f7V4Hjf08612@slack.lne.com> References: <200108310417.f7V4Hjf08612@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: <20010831103935.A21372@weathership.homeport.org> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:14:46PM -0700, Tim May wrote: | A mixnet of the N extant remailers offers pretty damned good | untraceability. Needs some work on getting remailers more robust, but | the underlying nested encryption looks to be a formidable challenge for | Shin Bet to crack. http://anon.efga.org/Remailers lists about 35 Mixmasters and 45 type 1 remailers. An awful lot depends on what you mean by "pretty good untracability." For example, if you send a dozen messages from Alice to Bob, then I'd bet you can do an entry-exit correlation attack. It becomes harder if you add substantial cover traffic, but Kocher-esque reductions in the noise are very powerful. If Alice and Bob are smart spies, and use a different hotmail recieving address each time, then you get pretty good untracability, but that untracability comes as much from the one-off nature of the messages as the mix network between them. And, depending on how good I think Shin Bet is at traffic analysis, I'm not sure if I'd even draw attention to my messages by sending them through 1/40^5 remailers. Thats 28 or 29 bits with 5 hops. If you start looking at reliability, only half or so of the remailers have 99% reliability, although only 10 are below 95% which means either a smaller pool, or a need for redundancy, both of which reduce your security. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 31 10:41:02 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:41:02 -0700 Subject: Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108311744.f7VHiCf12651@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 07:10 AM, Fisher Mark wrote: >> Look at how AP was used. > > Mike, the main reason the Jim Bell prosecution started was his actions, > not > his words. Some of us on the list (myself included) would be majorly > upset > if a stink bomb strong enough to make us vomit was used on us (upset > enough > to want someone to take action against Jim Bell). Had Jim Bell > restrained > himself to speech, prosecution would have been much more difficult to > start. > Not impossible, but much more difficult. Bell's cases and Parker's case(s) have been thrashed-over many times here. Clueful folks like Duncan Frissell have outlined some of the obvious errors (acted as his own lawyer, admitted tampering with mail, the infamous "Say goodnight, Joshua" item, etc.). I believe 10 years in prison is out of proportion. I have direct knowledge of far more serious crimes, including arson, which resulted in no prison time at all. Bell made various mistakes, but I'm not saying he deserves 10 years in a federal prison. And the handling of the case was strange. Others have written about it in a lot of detail. Both the Bell and Parker cases involved identifiable actions that were not just "speech actions." (To JA Terrenson/Measle, there _is_ a difference between speech and action. Planting a stink bomb is not "political speech." Tampering with mail is not speech. Threatening harm, directly and specifically, is not speech.) I'll give you Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution (worked so far...): 1. Never know the specific names of any judges or prosecutors. This cuts way down on the chance that one will slip up and make a comment which might be construed as a specific threat. Keep things general. (I _do_ know the names of Jeff Gordon, Robb London, and Judge Tanner, but only because there have been so many articles and items about them.) 2. Never, ever, make physical contact with Feds. Don't go to their buildings unless required to, don't go near the homes or offices of their employees, just avoid them completely. This makes "stalking" charges mighty hard to press. 3. Don't attend "People's Tribunals" where specific agents, officers, judges, etc. are to be "tried" for their crimes. We see that many/most of these are infiltrated, and that, in fact, the chief rabble-rousers are likely to be government agents or stool pigeons. (Some may be acting to reduce other charges against them, as the Feds wanted Randy Weaver to do--they set Weaver up with that quarter inch taken off a shotgun and then wanted him to infiltrate the Northwest militias and narc them out.) 4. If whackos send you e-mail, don't respond. (I routinely discarded e-mail from Vulis, Detweiler, Toto, Bell, and others I won't name for reasons of politeness. Some of them sent me what I thought were "side channel" communications which looked to be efforts to rope me into their plans. Perhaps the lack of correspondence with Parker and Bell is what saved me from being dragged in front of a grand jury.) 5. At physical Cypherpunks meetings, by all means talk about politics, uses of technology, even "anarchic" things. But avoid being drawn into debates about what to do to specific politicians, judges, etc.. (Attendees at Bay Area meetings will know that for 9 years now we have had occasional heated discussions of these things, but we have avoided the kind of "people's tribunal" crap that helped get Bell into trouble.) 6. Don't actually build bombs or modify weapons to fire in illegal ways. These are "actions," not speech. And neither are very useful. Perfectly OK to talk about either thing (maybe not on the Cypherpunks list, for reasons of relevancy), but may well be illegal to actually build. (It is not necessarily illegal to build bombs, but the specifics matter. One of the "pyrotechnics" newsgroups has discussions of this.) 7. Pay your taxes. Stay away from nutty schemes to not file tax returns, etc. (Part of what got Bell charged the first time was failure to file, fraudulent use of Social Security numbers, etc.) Arguing that taxes are wrong, unfair, etc. is not the same thing as tax evasion. Even promoting schemes to avoid taxes is probably not prosecutable (note that the book writers usually only spend time at Terminal Island when they themselves have used their ideas to evade taxes.). 8. Speech in purely electronic or written form is safer than speech in physical forums. More time to redact words, more ability to modify speech which might be interpreted as direct threats to a person. Less chance to be entrapped by a provocateur. See Rule 1: Never bother to learn the names of agents or judges. This makes it much harder to slip up and say something foolish like "We should use AP to eliminate Judge Foobar!" OK to say "I won't weep if Washington, D.C. is nerve-gassed by Osama bin Laden," as this is an expression of opinion. Ditto for "Shoot all politicians" (a general comment, overbroad, not specific, not credible, protected American anti-politician threat...probably even uttered by guys like Jeff Gordon in moments of frustration. Even legally OK to say "Someone should nerve gas Washington, D.C.," as this is not a call for action that is in way plausibly influenced by the call. Note: I'm not saying that such a call won't get your name put on a list...what I'm saying is that the Feds are unlikely to launch a prosecution over something so nebulous and obviously speech-like as "Defendant said someone should nerve gas Washington, D.C." First Amendment lawyers would jump on a case like this. However, a leader of Aryan Nation, for example, calling for his followers to kill Jews might cross the line ("incitement"). Their have been a few civil actions where the organization or its leaders were held liable for damages caused by followers who were incited to _specific_ actions. (An interesting question is whether any of the more vocal Cypherpunks could be held liable, civilly or criminally, for actions by "followers." I doubt it, given the situation. And the fact that there are no formal leaders, no structure, no real organization, helps. The export of crypto was maybe where there was most exposure.) Anyway, these are some general tips. I don't claim to be either morally pure or to be beyond the scrutiny of prosecutors. Who knows, maybe they're just waiting for me to slip up so they can present charges to a grand jury. But I think my tips are just common sense ways to avoid the situations Parker and Bell fell into. AN ANECDOTE: The closest I think I have come (think, because I don't know about times I never learned about) to being charged with this sort of a crime was when I had the encounter with the Secret Service at Stanford University just as Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea were arriving in the area I was in. The SS and Stanford Sheriff's converged on me from four sides, literally, and were on all sides of me. They demanded to look inside my bag...I refused (had a piece of crypto gear in it they might have thought looked suspicious, and there's the general point about their lack of probable cause). They one of them accused me of planting a bomb in the basement of Meyer Library with the intent of killing President Clinton. Did I plant a bomb in the basement of Meyer Library with the intent of assassinating President Clinton? Of course not. They were bluffing, hoping, I guess, I would freak out and say "I'm innocent. Search my bag if you don't believe me!" After about 10 minutes of staring me down, they told me to walk to the closest point that was off campus and not to return. I asked about my car. "If you are seen on campus, you will be arrested. You can get your car tomorrow." (Great, since I lived 60 miles away.) By the way, the SS also demanded that I give them my name and show them my driver's license. I refused, so at least they never got my name entered into the Master Data Bank of Presidential Threateners. As to why I was on the Stanford campus at precisely the time the Clintons were arriving, I have a pretty damned good reason. (Aside from the point that no reason at all was or is "needed.") I had been invited months before--and long before the Presidential visit was scheduled--to give a talk to Professor Margaret Radin's cyberlaw class. The class began at 4. I brought along my COMSEC (later, Starian) 3DES phone unit, to illustrate to the class some hardware. My encounter with the SS was around 3:30. I looped back around to the west side of the campus and walked back on campus and thence to the law school. I told Prof. Rader about the detainment by the SS and their demand that I open my bag and identify myself and my reason for being on campus. And about the threat to have me arrested if I was seen on the campus again. She said that students and faculty had all been dealing with the effects of Chelsea's arrival as a student and that the law school would be quite happy to handle my case if the SS or Stanford Sheriff's Dept. nabbed me. --Tim May From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 31 10:57:02 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:57:02 -0700 Subject: Enemies of the People...the customers of strong crypto In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108311800.f7VI0Df12904@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 07:22 AM, Fisher Mark wrote: >> When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom >> fighters >> in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. > > Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool > that > enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving > for > equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their > quest > to track down and kill Afghans who converted to Christianity and are now > preaching the Word. Tools are tools -- the uses are what we make of > them. > If you don't want to create tools that can be used for evil, then you > must > forgo the making of tools. > > Crypto anarchy is coming -- we had best prepare for it, lest it > overwhelm > us. In the end, I believe that it will result in more freedom for more > people, by restraining those in government from doing any silly thing > they > like to us. Many of those who have been quibbling about whether "freedom fighters" are terrorists, or whether Osama bin Laden is or is not a FF, etc., are MISSSING THE BIG PICTURE. Take the long view, the more agnostic view. Whether one likes the actions of bin Laden or Pablo Escobar or James Jesus Angleton is not the point Privacy and untraceability tools will be used by many who are seeking to evade others. Some we are taught in American schools are heroes, some we are taught are villains. Here's a list I distributed some years ago at a CFP Conference: (the paper is still available at Prof. Froomkin's site, http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tcmay.htm ) Appendix: Who are those Bad Guys, anyway? Depending on which nation one is in, which regime is in power, and other factors, here are some of the enemies of the people the laws against strong crypto and the banning of digital cash are intended to crush: Enemies of the People, the opposition party, the Resistance, friends of the Bad Guys, family members of the Bad Guys, conspirators, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, atheists, heretics, schismatics, heathens, leftists, rightists, poets, authors, Turks, Armenians, Scharansky, Solzhenitsyn, refuseniks, Chinese dissidents, students in front of tanks, Branch Davidians, Scientologists, Jesus, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, African National Congress, UNITA, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, colonial rebels, patriots, Tories, Basque separatists, Algerian separatists, secessionists, abolitionists, John Brown, draft opponents, communists, godless jew commies, fellow travellers, traitors, capitalists, imperialist lackeys, capitalist roaders, anarchists, monarchists, Charlie Chaplin, Galileo, Joan of Arc,, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, civil rights workers, Students for a Democratic Society, Weathermen, Margaret Sanger, birth control activists, abortionists, anti-abortionists, Michael Milken, Robert Vesco, Marc Rich, Nixon's Enemies, Hoover's enemies, Clinton's enemies, Craig Livingstone's high school enemies, Republicans, Democrats, labor organizers, corporate troublemakers, whistleblowers, smut peddlers, pornographers, readers of "Playboy," viewers of images of women whose faces are uncovered, Amateur Action, Jock Sturges, violators of the CDA, alt.fan.karla-homulka readers, Internet Casino customers, Scientologists, Rosicrucians, royalists, Jacobins, Hemlock Society activists, Jimmy Hoffa, John L. Lewis, Cesar Chavez, opponents of United Fruit, land reformers, Simon Bolivar, Robin Hood, Dennis Banks, American Indian Movement, Jack Anderson, Daniel Ellsberg, peace activists, Father Berrigan, Mormons, Joseph Smith, missionaries, Greenpeace, Animal Liberation Front, gypsies, diplomats, U.N. ambassadors, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Ayotollah Khomeini, John Gotti, Papists, Ulstermen, IRA, Shining Path, militia members, tax protestors, Hindus, Sikhs, Lech Walesa, Polish labor movement, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and "suspects". From mmotyka at lsil.com Fri Aug 31 10:59:54 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:59:54 -0700 Subject: speech + action Message-ID: <3B8FD09A.3F0BF50E@lsil.com> Tim May wrote : >Which is why I asked for you some actual cases. I pointed out that--so >far as I have heard--there have been _no_ prosecutions for "paramilitary >training." (There may have been some paramilitary types busted for >firing AK-47s, for trespassing, whatever. This is why I listed these as >exceptions.) > You are right. Actual cases in which the bare-assed anti-paramilitary training laws are applied are in short supply. Generally they are associated with other infractions. Do note, however that there is a consistent thread of discussing the speech and the act i.e. the manual-based "training" regarding propane cylinders and the actual posession of same. The separate items are not puniushable but together seem to imply conspiracy to commit the act. http://nwcitizen.com/publicgood/reports/bailhear.html http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/02/arizona.militia/ >Bell's AP was not one of the charges in his case. > Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the purpose of spicing up the case. >No point in going round and round. I don't think even the U.S.G. has >this power that you think it does, and I cite the non-prosecution of >many right-wing groups as evidence. When busts have occurred, other >alleged crimes were involved, like trespassing, violations of gun laws, >etc. > You are absolutely right. Where I think you misread me is this : I don't think that the government *has* this power, I think the way the laws are written and discussed, this degree of power is something for which they reach. Mike From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 08:12:33 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:12:33 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: ; from measl@mfn.org on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 08:21:45AM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20010831111233.A23259@cluebot.com> Is it necessary to send this message to cypherpunks twice? -Declan --- From: measl at mfn.org Subject: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot To: cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com Cc: cypherpunks at lne.com Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:21:45 -0500 (CDT) From frissell at panix.com Fri Aug 31 08:17:45 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: your mail In-Reply-To: <7e134ce5aaa8f04e97222088978ae12c@hyperreal.pl> Message-ID: On 31 Aug 2001, Anonymous wrote: > When I saw the "general response to bombz" post with the below mentioned book, I asked my significant other to please order a copy for me, because she gets a very nice reduction on prices of books she buys as an employed of Borders Bookstore chain. > > She refused to enter this request into their computer system to place an order, because she claims that the store monitors orders for some categories of special orders, and reports these orders to the police as a custom of policy! > > Buyers of bookstores beware. > > -------------------------------------- > Eissler, M. "A Handbook on Modern Explosives: A Practical Treatise, with > Chapters on Explosives in Practical Applications" London: Crosby Lockwood > and Son, 1897. 2nd, Enlarged, fair, illus., appendices, index. > I wouldn't use Borders for my OP book searches in any case. I use addall.com. That particular book doesn't show up currently but a title search on 'modern explosives' does turn up some other books by Eissler that may be of interest to the well-heeled fans of explosive devices. http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/submitRare.cgi?author=&title=modern+explosives&keyword=&isbn=&order=TITLE&ordering=ASC&dispCurr=USD&binding=Any+Binding&min=&max=&timeout=20&match=Y&StoreAbebooks=on&StoreAlibris=on&StoreAntiqbook=on&StoreBiblion=on&StoreElephantbooks=on&StoreHalf=on&StoreILAB=on&StoreJustBooks=on&StorePowells=on For educational purposes only. Note that the unlicensed private use of explosives may be legal in America depending on time and place. Need any stumps cleared? How can we stop that Canadian armoured column slicing through Buffalo and heading down the Thruway towards NYC? DCF ---- And the Rockets' red glare, the Bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our Flag was still there From mmotyka at lsil.com Fri Aug 31 11:59:04 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:59:04 -0700 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation References: Message-ID: <3B8FDE78.316951D4@lsil.com> Duncan Frissell wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > > > All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. Make well > > considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too > > much, too quickly and poorly crafted. By all means let's improve the > > educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid > > knee-jerk approach. Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing > > war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good. > > Since we don't depend on the government for food, steel, concrete, or > medical care (60% private money not much actual government acre delivery); > why would we think that teaching by government employees would be > efficient. > First, you depend more than you think on government actions for essentials even though they have private brand labels. Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's irrational. I've talked with several friends about pooling efforts and creating a small private school. It ain't easy. It is something I would like to do. The financial reform part is probably hopeless in the short term. Once the hooks are into the green they don't like to let go. > We can argue about payment later (although taxing the poor to pay for the > college education of the rich seems unfair), but no rational person can > argue that socialist provision of services is superior to market provision > in case like this. > What the fuck do I care how the services are provided? Show me the services and I'll rate them myself without the benefit of your ideological prerating system. That's what rational means. I do resent the financial handcuffs. > > This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure > > as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. Sounds like the sort of > > foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves. > > I can pick any public school teacher at random and cross ex them on the > stand and establish that they don't know diddly squat. The concept that > one should institutionalize one's children for 8 hours a day so that > public officials can attempt to modify their knowledge, understanding, and > physical and psychological deportment is the worst kind of child abuse. > At future war crimes trials America's parents will have to answer for > their crimes. (For those of you who attended slave schools, that last is > a joke.) > Big challenge, most people don't know diddly squat. It may be just as difficult to find or create alternative schools that are affordable ( even with financial reforms ) and provide a good education as it is to improve what we have. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. And not everyone has the ability to home-school for various reasons. All I said was that I don't think the solution to the problem is as simple as throwing it all away. > Can you seriously argue that governments do a better job of education or > that it's safe to trust them with the souls (in the religious and > non-religious sense) of the innocent. > Do a better job of education than ...? As for the religious bit, they're easily as dangerous as governments. I usually get the new car before I get rid of the old one. All I said is that before you dismantle what you don't like start building the replacement, get a few prototypes to the working stage. > Apart from everything else one can say, attending slave schools subjects > the child and the family to the full force of government record keeping. > If you are not on the dole and you have no children in slave schools, your > chances of having any sort of interaction with the minions of the coercive > state apparatus are very substantially reduced. Much safer. > Moderately interesting point. > > >While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices > > >should not be available. > > Yes, just like the employment choice of "slavery" should not be available > because it's wrong (at least within my proprietary community). > Your point? > > Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of > > carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals > > and beneficial to the community. Again, the two goals are neither > > completely compatible nor mutually exclusive. > > What's the community got to do with it? I should give up money and > children because people who are demonstrably stupider than I am think it > would be a good idea? I don't give barbers who can't cut my hair the way > I want my money or my hair. Why on earth should I do it to my children? > You live in a community. Been to a third world country? I don't really want to see that here. In some ways we have progressed in that direction over the past few decades... One thing I disliked about CA's recent attempt at the voucher system is that it would let some people take out more than they put in. It was still a socialist program. Funny that, coming from a generally right-wing angle. In addition there are very limited choices for private schools where I live. The voucher proposal SMBTAHS. > The slave school teachers of those making that argument did at least that > part of their work well. > Wee bit bitter, eh? > DCF > Happy, happy, happy, all of the time, Mike From georgemw at speakeasy.net Fri Aug 31 12:13:32 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:13:32 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3B8F7F6C.9497.B2F4B9C@localhost> On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: > But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools. > They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate. > Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current > remailer system is. A truly reliable and effective anonymity technology > will be more like a service than a tool. I agree completely. > This means that the operators > choose to whom they will market and sell their services. > Here I disagree completely. I think in a properly designed anonymity system the users will be, well, anonymous, and it should be impossible to tell any more about them than that they pay their bills on time. Certainly most potential users would balk at requirements that they prove who they were and justify their desire to use such a system, since that would tend to defeat the purpose. > This was one of the main points of the original message. You can't just > deploy a technology and hope that someone finds it useful. You need to > identify and target a market segment where the value exceeds the cost. > And Tim May himself raised the issue of further looking for profitable > markets which are morally acceptable. He sometimes seems reluctant > to admit it, but the point of crypto anarchy is to improve the world > by reducing the impact of government coercion. It's not supposed to > be a nihilistic attempt to tear down institutions just for the sake > of destruction. > Well, Tim hasn't been excessivly shy about expressing his political opinions IMO, but that's not really relevant. I don't think it serves any purpose to discuss who constitute "valiant freedom fighters resisting a tyrannical government" and who are "bloody terrorist fanatics attempting to overthrow a benign legitimate government and replace it wth a worse one" in this forum. We may have strong opinions on this matter as individuals, but it is completely unreasonable to expect us to come to any kind of consensus as a group. Nor is it necessarily beneficial to do so. Would a system useful to the "virtuous" seperatist Kurds in Iraq be different in any technical way from a system used by the "evil" seperatist Kurds in Turkey? > Any cypherpunk who creates a privacy technology which targets bin Laden > and his cohorts as a market is deluding himself if he thinks he is making > the world a better place. You can say all the nasty things you like > about Western civilization, but crypto anarchy has the best chance of > survival under a democratic government that pays at least lip service to > values of individual freedom. You who believe that the U.S. government > is the epitome of evil should spend some time living in Afghanistan. I haven't noticed anyone actually saying anything complimentary about Bin Laden or the Taliban. But it's pretty pointless to say, "hey, I've got this great idea, but it's not for Islamics, it's for anti-Castro Cubans". (We like them, right? And some of them have lots of money, right?) Any discussion along those lines is only productive way down the line when you're actually near deploying something. Or at least soliciting genine bids for developement contracts. > It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather > than set it back. Tim May made a good start on this in his earlier > posting. Those who reject the idea of judging groups and markets by > their morality are the ones who are missing the point. > > Wrong. When discussing design of a system, it makes sense to limit discussion to parameters relevant to system design. How much individuals might be willing to pay to protect their privacy, how great of injuries they might suffer if their privacy is compromised, is relevant to system design. Why they want privacy, whether you or I as individuals would think of them as "good guys" or "bad guys", really isn't. Unless you want to make a bizzare assertion like "anyone potentially willing to spend upwards of 50 bucks a message is almost certainly a bad guy, so it's manifestly immoral to design a system with that kind of marke6t in mind". Forgive my close- mindedness, but I think that kind of argument is sufficiently absurd to be unworthy of consideration. George From gbroiles at well.com Fri Aug 31 12:31:31 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:31:31 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010831114610.03ec9ec0@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 02:43 PM 8/31/2001 -0400, Fausting wrote: >Tim wrote: > >But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design > >eventually. >If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen interest >in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. What's the reason? If the goal was disassembly and analysis, it wouldn't be necessary to buy more than one copy - and even buying one copy is mostly a formality, though it's probably a lot cheaper and faster than any of the other ways people might get it. Still, it wouldn't exactly be a big problem for them to buy a single copy (or a few copies) with more-or-less untraceable addresses and credit cards. If they disclosed their identity, they already had what they needed, or were sure they could get it one way or another. The beta was available - I've forgotten the exact timing, by now - to anybody with a credit card and an Internet connection, and CD-ROM copies of the beta were handed out at web/internet-oriented conferences. ZKS was not (nor is anyone else with distribution on any interesting scale) faced with the choice "Shall I let the various three-letter-agencies have a copy of my software?". ZKS was faced with the choice "Would we like to get a lot, a little, or no money from the NSA?", and it's hard to blame them for taking the cash. Further, they've been open (since late 1999/early 2000, at least) about wanting to encourage and facilitate law enforcement and intelligence community use of their system, so that those groups come to see ZKS/Freedom as a system which has good and bad aspects, instead of just bad ones .. in hopes that a more nuanced (or conflicted) view of Freedom's utility would slow down or stop regulatory activity aimed at ZKS. >Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as being little >more than irrelevant, moralistic hand-waving. But I don't find the "they're >going to compromise it anyway so why not make a buck when we can" line of >reasoning particularly satisfying. Well, no, it's not especially elegant or poetic, but it's simple economics, which are at the heart of both successful business and successful cryptography. If ZKS refused to sell to NSA, what would have changed, except for their ability to crow "We told NSA to fuck off!" ..? >All place-in-the-pecking-order issues aside, roughly how long do you think >it's going to take before "dissident-grade untraceability" becomes a >reality? If anyone deigns to show me why the prospects are better >than "bleak", I'd love to be proven wrong. "Dissident-grade untraceability" (DGU) is an elusive goal - if you look at what's theoretically possible, we've got it now (and have had it for ~ 20 years, albeit with an unfriendly UI). If you look at what's deployed, we'll probably never get there, because it's a multi-layered problem, where holes appear in layers far beyond the control of any individual or organization. Maybe ZKS can give me really great privacy within the 7-layer stack, but they can't do anything about someone torturing me until I confess to crimes I did (or didn't) commit, or undercover agents who pretend to be fellow dissidents but are actually secret policemen, or snoopy busybodies who notice that every time I use the computer at the local cybercafe, a few hours later a new issue of The Squealing Rodent hits Usenet full of irresponsible rumors about the Administration .. or that during the months I was on "vacation" in solitary confinement, no new issues were published. DGU is just like other kinds of security - it's not a product or service you can buy from someone, even if you're really careful to pick the right vendor. Maybe you can pick a vendor who does a good job within their area of responsibility - and maybe you can pick a vendor who'll tell you really clearly which problems they solve and which problems they don't - but it's silly to expect anyone (be it ZKS or SafeWeb or anonymous remailers or anyone else) to provide perfect untraceability on a silver platter, such that users don't need to pay any attention themselves. You'll never get real-world perfect untraceability if you've got human beings at the ends of the "anonymous" communication pipes. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 31 12:32:13 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:32:13 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200108311935.f7VJZMf13647@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: > >> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design >> eventually. > > If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen > interest > in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. Perhaps the NSA wanted to use the product without making illegal copies? Your earlier point (that they wished to reverse-engineer the product) is in fact undermined by this fact that they bought N copies. --Tim May From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 10:45:59 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:45:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B8F6436.22971.2EBA01F@localhost> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > A revolution involves mass participation, and widespread > spontaneous defiance of state authority. A revolution is when one part of a populace takes up arms against another part of the populace. The argument is over who gets the final say. It's worth saying that there are actually a wide range of shades to this word (eg rebellion v revolt v mutiny). > A coup involves a tiny little secretive conspiracy. A coup is the sudden overthrow of a government by force. It may be by a small fraction or a large one. > A coup is announced, Yeah, when the guns start going off... > a revolution experienced. Yeah, when the guns start going off... -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 10:56:12 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:56:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution In-Reply-To: <200108311744.f7VHiCf12651@slack.lne.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: > By the way, the SS also demanded that I give them my name and show them > my driver's license. I refused, so at least they never got my name > entered into the Master Data Bank of Presidential Threateners. There is this device called a camera... -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From morlockelloi at yahoo.com Fri Aug 31 12:58:27 2001 From: morlockelloi at yahoo.com (Morlock Elloi) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010831101939.00860a50@pop.sprynet.com> Message-ID: <20010831195827.45849.qmail@web13207.mail.yahoo.com> > There are *no* tools which are useful *only* for powering down > government. Well, there are some *biased* tools. Anuthing that builds real or virtual walls impedes the spread of monocultural fungal infection (aka the government). The more power an entity has, the less walls it needs. So wall-building tools inherently help smaller/weaker entities. Crypto is one of these. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com From wolf at priori.net Fri Aug 31 13:00:48 2001 From: wolf at priori.net (Meyer Wolfsheim) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: > > >But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design > >eventually. > > If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen interest > in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. As I recall, this was an open beta. The NSA would probably have ordered a copy under a private individual's name (and had it sent to a residential address) had ZKS denied them the sale. (They didn't need a large number of copies to examine it for flaws.) > Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as being little > more than irrelevant, moralistic hand-waving. But I don't find the "they're > going to compromise it anyway so why not make a buck when we can" line of > reasoning particularly satisfying. That's not the reasoning that anyone here is stating. "They're going to obtain a copy of the software anyway, so why not make a buck while we can," is what's being said, coupled with "they shouldn't be able to break the software even if they have the source, so if we've done our jobs there is no reason not so sell it to them." Please. If you are going to participate in this debate, possess the ability to paraphrase the opponent's arguements correctly. -MW- From mmotyka at lsil.com Fri Aug 31 13:00:50 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:00:50 -0700 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation Message-ID: <3B8FECF2.83984045@lsil.com> To : measl at mfn.org >> Learn to read poopyhead (isn't that now the official CP insult?). > >Actually, I think the currently "hip" term would be "twit" :-) > Dunno, I've seen both recently. Just trying to live up to my slave training and conform. >> Look at the part you snipped : >> >> I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) >> should be ruled out but you should at least think >> about the implications a bit. > >Which, in context, is clearly a justification of what follows it. > >> All I said was that actions can have unintended consequences. > >No, you did not. Nowhere was this said or implied. What you said is >above, so there is no need to it here as well. > Here's the original : > >Another facet is that the well-to-do are attempting to remove their >funds from the systems so they can use those funds to educate their >children as they choose. A voucher system would surely benefit me >financially. This is a reasonable desire but it will have a negative >effect on the public school systems and a subsequent negative effect on >the society as a whole. I know the masses are a bit thick but do you >want them to be even thicker? And not all bright people come from >priviledged backgrounds. Do you want to limit the opportunities for some >of the brightest kids in the country before they've even had a chance? >I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) should be ruled out >but you should at least think about the implications a bit. > I would summarize this paragraph, poorly written as it may be, as follows : 1) Some people wish to remove their monies from the public schools and make their own choices. 2) Here are some possible negative effects of that action. 3) I'm not against it but at least think about the implications before acting. Looks pretty simple to me. Doesn't really take a position other than "fine, measure twice, cut once if you want my vote." >I am not endowed with any expertise on this topic, so I cannot make any >considered judgement on the example. Having thrown out the required >caveat, it seems to me that the deregulation was only a small part of the >problem. Of course, I am truly talking out of my ass on this topic, so I >will leave it here... > I'm no expert on the details either but it looks like a chant of "deregulate" didn't work out so well. Expect to hear more chants of "deregulate" and "privatize" when it comes to things like power and water. I'm not sure which I prefer, a corporate dictatorship or a police state. >The fact that you consider this a "knee jerk" response does not make it >so: you have no way of knowing how much or little I have looked into this >topic. As someone who has had 4 kids in various public and private >schools, as well as person who has personally attended two private and >three public schools, I have had ample incentive to look at homeschooling >when it began to cross my radar about three years ago. > >My beliefs regarding homeschooling are very definitely _not_ >knee-jerk reactions. And my statements regarding the state of the public >schools is from personal first hand experience, both as a student, and as >a parent. > >> Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing >> war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good. > >What "right wing war chants"? Where the hell do you get the idea I'm a >right wing type of guy? Just because I believe that home schooling is a >Good Thing and that the public schools are a life threatening repository >of brainwashing and bad karma? Last I heard, it took a LOT more than this >to qualify as "right wing". > > I know the masses are a bit thick but do you > want them to be even thicker? > > > >To be frank, sending kids to public schools is practically *requiring* > >that they become "thick", merely in order to _survive_. > > > This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure > as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. > >Again with the knee jerk label. If it's a view you disagree with, it's a >knee-jerk reaction, huh? > >> Sounds like the sort of >> foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves. > >I wouldn't know, I don't have much use for Rush, and have only heard >*about* his show. However, we again see the disparaging of view with >which you disagree as terms such as "foolishness". This "position" is >hardly persuasive. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to WHY it is so >"foolish"? Perhaps you can trade some FIRST HAND information you have on >the state of the public schools, so that we may more readily examine the >ISSUES before us, and not your assertions that all positions you disfavor >are "knee jerk reactions"? > I would say that I use the term knee-jerk and right-wing war chants as labels for the idea that all public schools are somehow seriously inferior to private schools or home schooling. Maybe the term knee-jerk is as poor as the idea of lumping all public schools into a single assessment. Furthermore, I think if you read what I've said you would not find that I flat out disagree with your attitudes about education but rather try to point out that maybe things are a little more tricky than you suggest. >>>> I wish there were more ( and better ) educational choices and that those >>>> choices were reflected reasonably in the financial systems but every >>>> proposal I've seen so far sucks moose bladder through a hairy straw. >>> >>>While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices >>>should not be available. >>> >>Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of >>carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals >>and beneficial to the community. > >No. Your post did make several statements which claimed to favor >proposals that were fair to the community, but NOT to >individuals. Personally, I think the Good Of The Many depends totally >upon the Good Of The Few. The macrocosmic must fail if the microcosmic is >broken. > >> Again, the two goals are neither >> completely compatible nor mutually exclusive. > >While I actually agree with this assertion to a degree, I would also >caveat it with (1) I can only supply a very weak degree of "confidence" in >the truth of this assertion, and (2) I am unable to compellingly argue >either for or against it. This type of conundrum should lead the more >analytic amongst us to examine these issues on a much deeper basis, >hopefully to determine what properties are impeding the discovery of the >actual truth or flasity of the above premises... > >>Make up your mind. > I see no reason that I'm obligated to make up my mind until I choose to. >>I have : good ideas, thumbs up, bad ideas, thumbs down. > >The ideas expressed above, namely the Good Of The Many outweighs the Good >Of The Few: Thumbs Down. > Ah, I apoligize, you missed the point. If you knew me you would know that as far as I am concerned the the rights of the individual should NEVER be forcefully compromised for the good of the many. IOW, if I have the last freshwater spring on earth, unless I'm feeling generous today, if I don't like you and don't need you and can successfully fight you off, you're fucked brother. The point you miss is that we don't live in isolation. It may very well be that in order to optimize our quality of life as individuals we have to ( preferably voluntarily ) make some ( preferably minimal ) sacrifices that improve the lot of others. I find it to be a very simple and obvious concept. Yes it does sound like you have to pay protection money to reduce the degree to which you must fight to keep what you have but rather than beat your head against a wall and complain about how unfair life is, optimize. Mike From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 11:03:16 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:03:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: speech + action In-Reply-To: <3B8FD09A.3F0BF50E@lsil.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > Where I think you misread me is this : I don't think that the government > *has* this power, I think the way the laws are written and discussed, > this degree of power is something for which they reach. Which must be continously tested by 'controversial' speech through mechanisms like mailing lists, anonymous remailers, data havens, etc. The question is not what they do about it, but rather if they do anything at all. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From d.dickson2 at verizon.net Fri Aug 31 10:21:25 2001 From: d.dickson2 at verizon.net (David C. Dickson) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:21:25 -0400 Subject: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TRAINING CONFERENCE - OCTOBER 2001 - WASH. DC Message-ID: <3220115-220018531172125890@verizon.net> To: CYPHERPUNKS at TOAD.COM MARK YOUR CALENDER!!!! MARKET*ACCESS INTERNATIONAL is pleased to announce�.. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT : MANAGING INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND DOCUMENTS FOR THE FEDERAL ENTERPRISE Date: October 25, 2001 Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C. Atrium Ballroom Time: 7:30 AM Registration Program Starts: 8:30 AM Wrap-up: 4:15 PM Continental Breakfast, Refreshments, Lunch included. NOTE: If you have received this email in error or wish to be removed from our distribution list, please REPLY to this message by placing REMOVE in the SUBJECT line. Thank you About this conference: As government becomes more dependent on e-business, databases, information storehouses, mission critical information storage and information sharing, new requirements are posed. These emerging requirements are in the areas of improving service aimed at: * Citizens, through the development of one-stop Web portals for access to large stores of government databases and data warehouses. * Businesses, by using the Internet for transactions with government and consolidating reporting requirements. * Intergovernmental, through simplifying reporting of performance on grants programs. * Internal, by using commercial best practices, such as knowledge management, to improve efficiency and effectiveness. In order to achieve these goals we are beginning to see the convergence of several diverse management disciplines: * Documents * Storage * Archiving Policy * Records * And� Knowledge Management Conference Goal: The purpose of this training conference is to examine new techniques and strategies now being explored by federal agencies and commercial best practices. We will profile agency initiatives, management strategies and shifts in policy. Who should attend: * Agency IT Executives, Managers, and Staff * Agency Records Management Executives, Managers and Staff * Agency information systems program managers * Agency CIO and their staff * Government and Industry Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) and staff * Functional area managers * Federal systems integrators * Hardware and software solutions providers * Users and manufacturers of large-scale data storage systems Many different government agencies will be sending senior representatives to attend the conference! Here's a sampling: * DLA * National Defense University * US Army CECOM * Department of Agriculture * Department of Transportation � and many others to be registered. What you will learn: * Agency plans, programs and priorities * Successes and Lessons learned * Innovative government approaches and applications * New technologies and management strategies - what is on the drawing boards * Security issues * How to structure compliant and successful solutions * Risks * Commercial and government best practices * New rules, new policies Steering Committee: * Regina Venezia, US Department of the Army -- CECOM * Jimmy Parker, GSA * Phil Grove, USDA * Mike Dirle, DAPS (Defense Automation & Production Service) * Shawn Magill, DAPS (Defense Automation & Production Service) * Dr. Robert E. Neilson, Chief Knowledge Officer, National Defense University -- IRM College * Dr. Johnson, Department of Energy/Sandia Labs * Gartner (Speaker to be announced) Sponsors: * Association for Enterprise Integration - AFEI * Dept. of Transportation/TASC * Defense Logistics Agency/DAPS * Edge Technologies * Verizon * AppDev * Gartner �.other sponsors to be announced. The registration fee for this important training conference is: * Government Credit Card or Check in Advance: $395 * Government Training Forms/Invoice: $445 * Industry and Federal Contractors, Payment in Advance: $595 * Industry and Federal Contractors/Invoice: $645 We accept government training forms and government and commercial credit cards (VISA, MC, American Express). Please register early. The conference area has limited seating available and we anticipate a sell out. Points of Contact: For information on sponsorship opportunities & exhibitor arrangements, please contact Mr. George Groesbeck, 941-360-3663 Registration and Information Options For general conference information, or to register for this event, please contact Ms. Kristen Brooks, 703-807-2745 [1] Fax: registration from to 703-807-2728. [2] Mail: registration form to: Market*Access International, Inc. Attn: Registration 4301 Wilson Blvd. #1003 Arlington, VA 22203 REGISTRATION FORM KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MANAGING INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, AND DOCUMENTS FOR THE FEDERAL ENTERPRISE October 25, 2001 - Washington, DC (Use additional pages as needed for multiple employees) Attendee Name: Title: Company/Agency: Company/Agency Web site: Address: City: State: Zip Code: Email: Telephone: Fax: Note: Payment requested in advance. Please check one of the following as your form of payment: [ ] Check Make checks payable to: Market*Access International Send to: Market*Access, Attn: Registration, 4301 Wilson Blvd. #1003, Arlington VA 22203 [ ] VISA [ ] MasterCard [ ] American Express Account Number: ___________________________Exp. Date___________________ Cardholder Name: ______________________________________________________ Signature (required) or telephone order _______________________________________ Pre-Registration Fee: * Government Credit Card or Check in Advance: $395 * Government Training Forms/Invoice: $445 * Industry and Federal Contractors, Payment in Advance: $595 * Industry and Federal Contractors/Invoice: $645 Registration and Information: Call Kristen Brooks (703) 807-2745 Fax this form to 703-807-2728. Thank you. CANCELLATION POLICY: Attendees canceling their registration 48 hours (2 days) before the scheduled event will not receive a credited refund. Any cancellation before this time will be eligible for a full refund. We apologizes for any inconvenience this my cause, but we are required to commit in advance, to the event facility, the number of attendees that will be attending lunch and refreshment breaks throughout the day's event. From AreaDeDivulgacao at via-rs.net Fri Aug 31 09:28:45 2001 From: AreaDeDivulgacao at via-rs.net ("Espao Vital Virtual" > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 5524 bytes Desc: not available URL: From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Fri Aug 31 05:32:57 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:32:57 +0100 Subject: Borders UK and privacy References: <20010829232933.C24387@cluebot.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010830103051.02226670@mail.well.com> Message-ID: <3B8F83F9.48EB2ED6@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Declan McCullagh wrote: > > It makes sense that human debris would be a portion of the waste removed, > but compared to food items, dead rats, discarded trash and newspapers, it > strikes me that it would not be an especially large portion. --Declan Having been on the Underground this morning, I think I agree with you! Are we talking about the trains, the stations or the tunnels? Or the upholstery in the trains? Or what turns up in the vacuum cleaners of the overnight crew who fix them up after someone else has already removed all the dead McCrap? Maybe the Chinese Whispers have blown up a boring statistic into something silly. > At 09:47 PM 8/29/01 -0400, Ryan Arneson wrote: > >Someone tell the Travel Channel in that case, they did a story on the > >London underground, including the Underground (big U) and mentioned this > >very thing. It was called "Underground London" and unfortunately, the last > >day they list as an air date is 8/25. So it must be true then? OTOH I know people who have sampled the air in underground stations for spores and bacteria so on. There are a lot of odd organisms down there :-) Ken Brown From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Fri Aug 31 05:59:18 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:59:18 +0100 Subject: Borders UK and privacy References: Message-ID: <3B8F8A26.2E0C744@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Duncan Frissell wrote: > How about a tailored virus that modifies your DNA on a rotating basis in > non significant fashion so that you're constantly "new". I wonder if > that would be theoretically possible? Fun times. Only if you are really fond of cancer Ken From mmotyka at lsil.com Fri Aug 31 14:29:45 2001 From: mmotyka at lsil.com (mmotyka at lsil.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:29:45 -0700 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation References: <3B8FDE78.316951D4@lsil.com> <20010831165128.B30123@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <3B9001C9.59B71B2D@lsil.com> Declan McCullagh wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:59:04AM -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > > Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they > > are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's > > irrational. > > Right. Folks in the policy arms of the federal government can be quite > bright. I was in a White House office less than an hour ago meeting > with two WH staffers and they were, as you might expect, smart and > educated and well-spoken. > > Not sure how this observation translates to state governments or law > enforcement types. > > -Declan > Some jobs do not attract the best and brightest but I think it's safe to assume that even in what you might consider the least likely places you will find some very sharp people. Your example of the Bush WH staffers is proof ;) A low blow but I couldn't resist! Mike From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 31 11:43:27 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:43:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" Message-ID: Tim wrote: >But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design >eventually. If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen interest in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as being little more than irrelevant, moralistic hand-waving. But I don't find the "they're going to compromise it anyway so why not make a buck when we can" line of reasoning particularly satisfying. >The security of Freedom should not depend on even having access to the >source code, else ZKS would be lying when they claim that even they >cannot trace a message back to the sender. (Something which some may >doubt...) Do you? > Either way, the prospects for "dissident-grade untraceability" are > fairly bleak. >You pontificate as if you know something about our field, when you >clearly know very little. Get some education if you plan to pontificate >like this. You call that pontificating? My saying "Either way, the prospects for "dissident-grade untraceability" are fairly bleak" is either interesting enough to address, or it isn't (for whatever reason.) Going for the gratuitous ad-hominem regarding whatever queer notions you happen to have about what I know or don't know is quite beneath you. >A mixnet of the N extant remailers offers pretty damned good >untraceability. Needs some work on getting remailers more robust, but >the underlying nested encryption looks to be a formidable challenge for >Shin Bet to crack. I'm sure I don't need to tell you a thing about the centrality of a secure implementation. Likewise, I'm sure you know that being a "formidable challenge" never prevented anything from being broken before, and it never will. All place-in-the-pecking-order issues aside, roughly how long do you think it's going to take before "dissident-grade untraceability" becomes a reality? If anyone deigns to show me why the prospects are better than "bleak", I'd love to be proven wrong. ~Faustine. From warlord at MIT.EDU Fri Aug 31 11:53:16 2001 From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins) Date: 31 Aug 2001 14:53:16 -0400 Subject: secure IRC/messaging successor In-Reply-To: Eugene Leitl's message of "Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:41:18 +0200 (MET DST)" References: Message-ID: gale has scaling problems to large numbers of users, in particular for group messaging. -derek Eugene Leitl writes: > Gale http://www.gale.org/ seems a well thought out infrastructure. Is the > consensus "this is it", or have I missed any alternatives? -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 13:05:48 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:05:48 -0500 Subject: Slashdot | Sklyarov, Elcomsoft Plead Not Guilty Message-ID: <3B8FEE1C.B92ABD8E@ssz.com> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/31/194207.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 31 12:21:03 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: <3B8ED027.13665.A94495@localhost> References: <3B8ED027.13665.A94495@localhost> Message-ID: Jim wrote: > On 29 Aug 2001, at 14:25, Faustine wrote: >> Which reminds me, I don't know why people here seem to think >> that any sort of "deception operation" would come from people >> who show up using nyms to express unpopular opinions. (e.g. >> "you said something I don't want to hear; threfore its FUD and >> you're a fed.") On the contrary, a really first-rate deception >> job would probably involve having someone post under their own >> name and acting in apparent good faith for years, only >> introducing the deceptive elements gradually, after they've had ample >> time to "overtly prove themselves trustworthy". > > You overestimate the subtlety and sophistication of the feds. Hardly! Anyway, define "feds"--FBI field agents and the folks from Ft. Meade and the think tanks are entirely different species. When, where and to what degree the former implement recommendations from C3D2 studies done by the latter is anyone's guess. And why be sure it's safe to assume they aren't learning from past mistakes? That isn't exactly what I'd call being in your best interest. > Whether Aimee is a fed or not, her quite genuine ignorance made > her incapable of knowing what views sounded cypherpunkish, and > what views sounded violently anti cypherpunkish. If she is a > fed, she probably also goes around buying crack and pretending to be a > thirteen year old interested in sex talk. And if the feds > were to assign a fed to our list, that is the kind of fed they > would assign. That is all they have. Bah, it's dangerous to be so sure. And all the fevered talk about Aimee being a fed is hysterical. Haven't you ever gone to a usenet group and baited people just for the hell of it because you were bored? Because it was fun to pull everyone's strings and watch them whine and howl and stomp their tiny feet at you? I'm not saying I have the first clue about her motivations, but you might want to keep in mind you dont have to be a fed to enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate. ~Faustine. From fisherm at tce.com Fri Aug 31 13:24:58 2001 From: fisherm at tce.com (Fisher Mark) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:24:58 -0500 Subject: An efficient Scheme for Proving a Shuffle Message-ID: "An efficient Scheme for Proving a Shuffle", Crypto 2001, Jun Furukawa and Kazue Sako (NEC Corporation), apparently could be used to show that a remailer is processing all messages without revealing the header or contents of any message. (Apparently because I haven't read the paper -- just heard of it on the nymip-res-group list.) =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm at tce.com Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_ From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Fri Aug 31 07:41:02 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:41:02 +0100 Subject: The Tim May Question References: <6b27c70a11b79df3173bf6d781338b73@melontraffickers.com> Message-ID: <3B8FA1FE.8D4C93CA@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> "A. Melon" wrote: [...] > I'm not sure if Reese was replying to one of my messages, but this > obsession less productive posters have with Tim is peculiar. > > Looked at as an engineering problem, one tends to look at the > underperforming components. Let's say you are running a steel mill, > and the average uptime of your blast furnaces is 10%. One is 95%. > Nobody would spend their time trying to get the last 5% out of the > best furnace. Anybody would look at it and figure out how to get the > other furnaces performing. [...] Which just goes to show that neither politics nor software are branches of engineering. If I was an Evil Exploitative Record Label and one artist was selling at ten times the rate of the other I'd put most of my marketing budget behind the hits. If I was a publisher of fantasy fiction and I had Joanne Rowling or Terry Pratchett on my list, and I was interested in nothing but making lots of money, I'd push them rather than, say, John Crowley or Tom Holt (two of my favourite writers). If I was managing a software development shop and one programmer was producing better code faster than the others, I'd give them more jobs, not less. If I was interested in reading political comment I'd read the writer who made most sense last time, not the ten who didn't. Part of all this is rent. Part of it is that some people really are much better at this stuff than others. Part of it is the mythical man-month. And part of it is that some folk still just don't get it. I make no comment about who gets it and who doesn't. Except that I deleted around 100 postings unread this morning & most of them came from entities claiming names starting with "J". Ken From bbt at teamyehey.com Fri Aug 31 00:52:17 2001 From: bbt at teamyehey.com (Bernie Terrado) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:52:17 +0800 Subject: what do you think of this article? That Sneaky Exponential-Beyond Metcalfe's Law Message-ID: <2C0E71FD4347C84A90C07BA4F6EC7B740111F8@disco-mail-1.teamyehey.local> http://www.reed.com/Papers/GFN/reedslaw.html Appreciate your comments. Thank you. From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Fri Aug 31 08:07:13 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:07:13 +0100 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot References: Message-ID: <3B8FA821.6C55C6FF@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Nomen Nescio replied to Tim May: [...] > You need to read your own posting more carefully: > > > Draw this graph I outlined. Think about where the markets are for tools > > for privacy and untraceability. Realize that many of the "far out' sweet > > spot applications are not necessarily immoral: think of freedom fighters > > in communist-controlled regimes, think of distribution of birth control > > information in Islamic countries, think of Jews hiding their assets in > > Swiss bank accounts, think of revolutionaries overthrowing bad > > governments, think of people avoiding unfair or confiscatory taxes, > > think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are > > forbidden to. > > You yourself were the one who raised the issue of morality. > Your examples were intended to be cases of "sweet spot" (that is, > profitable) applications which were also morally acceptable. It is > entirely appropriate in that context to examine whether these examples > meet the test of both being profitable and moral. [...] You miss the point. All that is needed is for someone, somewhere, to find these things desirable. It doesn't have to be you or me. We might think they are immoral but that changes nothing in practice. Or do you think that Muslims or Socialists or Greens or Zionists or the IRA or the CIA or the ETA or Presbyterians or Monsanto or whoever *you* dislike this week are incapable of choosing technology appropriate to their own perception of their needs? > When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters > in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. > > Do you think that bin Laden, if he succeeded, would bring in an era of > enlightened government supporting individual liberties? The man is a > religious fanatic. He is associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan, > which he helped put into power. This is the same Taliban which has > destroyed priceless cultural treasures because they were not Islamic, > forbids women to work or attend school, and sends armed police to attack > when men and women eat in the same room behind closed doors. > Oh, and last week they banned the Internet. All true, they are shits. And violent, well-armed, cruel, frightened, shits at that. But, in this context, so what? > Osama bin Laden, a perfect poster child for the cypherpunks. Said who? Actually he is a bit of a bogeyman & 90% of what he is accused of is just US propaganda looking for a new enemy to justify the continuation of cold-war military budgets - but there are other guys, like the Taliban, who really are that nasty - one of the endearingly cute things about US politics is that you get collectively confused when people don't like you so you assume they are being duped by evil criminal masterminds, so you find it much easier to deal with the concept of a Dark Lord in the East than you do with the idea that millions of people actually hate and fear the USA for good reason. And it was the US government that funded the Taliban to start with (with a little help from their friends in Pakistan). > We're definitely not seeing the same "big picture" if you think he is > a good example of someone cypherpunks should support. You aren't seeing the picture at all if you think anyone much here was suggesting that you should support him. All that is being proposed is that people in that position really want the kind of technology we've been talking about, some of them are able to pay for it, so the chances are they are going to get it, and someone might make money out of it, and that will fund further developments. You don't have to think that is a *good* thing, you might think it is a very bad thing indeed, but you do have to deal with it. Ken From wprice at cyphers.net Fri Aug 31 16:11:40 2001 From: wprice at cyphers.net (Will Price) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:11:40 -0700 Subject: [PGP-USERS] ANNOUNCE: PGP Source Code Now Available For Download Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 PGP Security is pleased to announce the first public release of its cryptographic source code in downloadable form. The PGPsdk Source Code 2.1.1 release is now available on the PGP website at: http://www.pgp.com/downloads/pgpsdk-agreement.asp PGP has a long tradition of releasing source code for purposes of Peer Review to ensure the integrity of the software. For the first time under new US Government export regulations, this source code release is being made available electronically for download to both US and International customers. This source code release is exactly the same code used as the cryptographic foundation for all of the PGP Desktop and Server products. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.1 iQA/AwUBO5AZHKy7FkvPc+xMEQJGmQCeLXx16HNNyLm1CR5XN4YSulsS7wsAoO93 lS0MKt16HZ5n9PisAC+VUtf0 =Iuii -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- .................................................................... Unsubscribe: Automated Help/Info: List Homepage: List Admin (human): Please do not send administrative commands to the list address! Thanks. --- end forwarded text --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 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 Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk Fri Aug 31 08:14:10 2001 From: k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk (Ken Brown) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:14:10 +0100 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" References: Message-ID: <3B8FA9C2.C0F96E25@ccs.bbk.ac.uk> Faustine wrote: [...] > Of course it has a trap door, that's probably the whole point of getting it > over there in the first place. And by the way, if you're going to question > SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge > for selling a boatload of the Freedom beta to the NSA in 1999 as well. What > did they think they wanted it for, farting around on Usenet? I bet they had > that sucker reverse-engineered and compromised in two minutes flat. Stands > to reason. I wouldn't trust either of them with anything significant. If it can be compromised by NSA looking at a beta, it can be compromised by whoever the Chinese have doing this sort of thing. If it is safe enough to use in a life-or-death situation AT ALL it is safe enough to use if the NSA & uncle Tom Cobbley and all have the source code. If not, not. Ken From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 31 13:27:39 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" Message-ID: On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: > Tim wrote: >> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design >> eventually. > If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen > interest in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. >Perhaps the NSA wanted to use the product without making illegal copies? >Your earlier point (that they wished to reverse-engineer the product) is >in fact undermined by this fact that they bought N copies. Unless you believe reverse engineering is only useful for making pirated copies, there's no reason to assume any sort of contradiction at all. As if the NSA would use anything from the private sector they didn't know inside out. ~Faustine. From rsalz at zolera.com Fri Aug 31 13:36:02 2001 From: rsalz at zolera.com (Rich Salz) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:36:02 -0400 Subject: secure IRC/messaging successor References: Message-ID: <3B8FF532.E8ED45C2@zolera.com> > gale has scaling problems to large numbers of users, in particular > for group messaging. What doesn't? :) Gale seems to have a better security story, but Jabber certainly has the momentum and large force behind it. Plus, it's XML so you *know* it's good. /r$ -- Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption http://www.zolera.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 13:51:28 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:51:28 -0400 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation In-Reply-To: <3B8FDE78.316951D4@lsil.com>; from mmotyka@lsil.com on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:59:04AM -0700 References: <3B8FDE78.316951D4@lsil.com> Message-ID: <20010831165128.B30123@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:59:04AM -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they > are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's > irrational. Right. Folks in the policy arms of the federal government can be quite bright. I was in a White House office less than an hour ago meeting with two WH staffers and they were, as you might expect, smart and educated and well-spoken. Not sure how this observation translates to state governments or law enforcement types. -Declan From ericm at lne.com Fri Aug 31 17:07:05 2001 From: ericm at lne.com (Eric Murray) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:07:05 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: ; from measl@mfn.org on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 06:45:24PM -0500 References: <20010831111233.A23259@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <20010831170705.A15046@slack.lne.com> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 06:45:24PM -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: > I reply to multiple nodes when present in the original as I have seen some > history of one node seeing things, and another not. When it comes in on > two nodes (to me), it generally goes out on two nodes. > > If there is a... hrmmm.. "preferable" way to handle this, feel free to > mention it Declan. The various CDRs should deal with this-- they keep track of which Message-IDs they have posted, and don't post messages that they have already posted. They do pass those messages on to the other CDRs that they peer with though, so by posting two messages you're adding to the number of messages that get sent on the "backbone"... I also noticed some duplicate messages, but I haven't had time to check out why they occured. If you sent them as two seperate messages to two different CDRs instead of putting both CDRs in the To: or Cc: line, that'd cause duplicates. I don't know how you'd get messages from two nodes unless you're subscribed to two nodes. Eric From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 15:18:01 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:18:01 -0500 Subject: Miami Herald: Reno looks like she's ready to make a run Message-ID: <3B900D19.DE28E1C2@ssz.com> http://www.miami.com/herald/content/news/local/florida/digdocs/029465.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bob at black.org Fri Aug 31 17:22:49 2001 From: bob at black.org (Subcommander Bob) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:22:49 -0700 Subject: stump go boom, and keeping kanooks at bay Message-ID: <3B902A58.9E61C598@black.org> At 11:17 AM 8/31/01 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Note that the unlicensed private use of explosives may be legal in America >depending on time and place. Need any stumps cleared? Last week, my local (SoCal) Home Depot had Grant's stump remover, which appeared to be homogenous small spheres and KNO3 was mentioned on the ingredients list :-) >How can we stop >that Canadian armoured column slicing through Buffalo and heading down the >Thruway towards NYC? Wait for a snowstorm. From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 14:26:07 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:26:07 -0400 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation In-Reply-To: <3B9001C9.59B71B2D@lsil.com> References: <3B8FDE78.316951D4@lsil.com> <20010831165128.B30123@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010831172457.0211b0f0@mail.well.com> At 02:29 PM 8/31/01 -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: >Some jobs do not attract the best and brightest but I think it's safe to >assume that even in what you might consider the least likely places you >will find some very sharp people. Your example of the Bush WH staffers >is proof ;) More seriously, this isn't a partisan thing. The Clinton WH folks I dealt on a day-to-day basis were just as sharp. -Declan From a3495 at cotse.com Fri Aug 31 14:31:45 2001 From: a3495 at cotse.com (Faustine) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" Message-ID: Greg wrote: >Further, they've been open (since late 1999/early >2000, at least) about wanting to encourage and facilitate law enforcement >and intelligence community use of their system, so that those groups come >to see ZKS/Freedom as a system which has good and bad aspects, instead of >just bad ones .. in hopes that a more nuanced (or conflicted) view of >Freedom's utility would slow down or stop regulatory activity aimed at ZKS. Sure. But to what extent can you collaborate without a)approaching full- blown collusion or b) getting taken for a ride in spite of your best efforts? Either way, it's hard to justify trading in on the old "staunch and true defender of privacy" cachet. That is, unless you overestimate your own product, underestimate the skill of those who would break it, and thereby delude yourself into feeling on top of the world. Hint: nobody at the NSA or in any way concerned with "national security" has the slightest incentive to get you to feel otherwise. Depressing. >Maybe in the long run, it's right to view any objections as being little >more than irrelevant, moralistic hand-waving. But I don't find the "they're >going to compromise it anyway so why not make a buck when we can" line of >reasoning particularly satisfying. >Well, no, it's not especially elegant or poetic, but it's simple >economics, which are at the heart of both successful business and >successful cryptography. If ZKS refused to sell to NSA, what would have >changed, except for their ability to crow "We told NSA to fuck off!" ..? Yep. Empty symbolic gestures are always expensive. You made a lot of interesting and thoughtful points about DGU too, thanks. ~Faustine. From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 31 17:45:23 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:45:23 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: <3B8F5D34.31069.2D03FC3@localhost> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010831174523.00866260@pop.sprynet.com> At 09:47 AM 8/31/01 -0700, jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > > I think it most unlikely that they could compromise rot-13 in >two minutes flat, They've probably automated a full cryptanalysis of any cipher available up to 1950, so rot-13 is covered :-) No one should ever use >a system that has to be reverse engineered. Nice, if subtle, quote. From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 31 18:14:43 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:14:43 -0700 Subject: Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution In-Reply-To: <200108311744.f7VHiCf12651@slack.lne.com> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010831181443.00867460@pop.sprynet.com> At 10:41 AM 8/31/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: >5. At physical Cypherpunks meetings, by all means talk about politics, >uses of technology, even "anarchic" things. But avoid being drawn into >debates about what to do to specific politicians, judges, etc.. >(Attendees at Bay Area meetings will know that for 9 years now we have >had occasional heated discussions of these things, but we have avoided >the kind of "people's tribunal" crap that helped get Bell into trouble.) Maybe *that's* the reason for holding meatings at the SFPD. To keep everyone from naming future corpses. >However, a leader of Aryan Nation, for example, calling for his >followers to kill Jews might cross the line ("incitement"). Their have >been a few civil actions where the organization or its leaders were held >liable for damages caused by followers who were incited to _specific_ >actions. So kill David Berg might be incitement? Hmm, he was a public figure. But "kill all Jews" could easily be justified on religious grounds -fatwas are protected speech. >(An interesting question is whether any of the more vocal Cypherpunks >could be held liable, civilly or criminally, for actions by "followers." The ability of a persecutor [sic] to conjure up a conspiracy (complete with hip name) could be most interesting. >I doubt it, given the situation. And the fact that there are no formal >leaders, no structure, no real organization, helps. "While acknowledging himself an Anarchist, he does not state to what branch of the organization he belongs" ---Discussing Leon Czolgosz' shooting of President William McKinley >After about 10 minutes of staring me down, they told me to walk to the >closest point that was off campus and not to return. I asked about my >car. "If you are seen on campus, you will be arrested. You can get your >car tomorrow." (Great, since I lived 60 miles away.) A "fuck you" would have been appropriate, but not in your rational self-interest. >By the way, the SS also demanded that I give them my name and show them >my driver's license. I refused, Nice. so at least they never got my name >entered into the Master Data Bank of Presidential Threateners. Yeah right :-) > I brought along my COMSEC (later, Starian) 3DES phone unit, >to illustrate to the class some hardware. Did you plan to call someone while running some kind of sniffer, or could the box have been empty? :-) The problem of the modern industrial photographer: all chips look the same. >She said that students and faculty had all been dealing >with the effects of Chelsea's arrival as a student and that the law >school would be quite happy to handle my case if the SS or Stanford >Sheriff's Dept. nabbed me. Sweet. From honig at sprynet.com Fri Aug 31 18:29:08 2001 From: honig at sprynet.com (David Honig) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:29:08 -0700 Subject: T'ban sec reqs; future history; the cat fancier conspiracy (Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20010831182908.00869d10@pop.sprynet.com> At 07:50 PM 8/31/01 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: > >That's absurd. The Taliban doesn't need crypto anonymity. They hold >the reins of power. All they need is authentication and confidentiality, but their field agents need anonymity too. Does the Taliban have a Verisign cert yet? >What would >they need with anonymous remailers and pseudonym based credentials? Stego and/or remailers would be useful for them. >But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools. >They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate. Oh, like electricity. Except in Calif. >Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current >remailer system is. Early years of phones, electricity, etc. Future historians will have as much compassion for the current cryptoengineers as we hold for the turn of the (prev) century folks who figured out how the universe works using cotton-wrapped wired and compasses. >The point is that cypherpunks have a goal. Actually cp's have a shared interest, like cat-fanciers. >The technology is not the >end, but the means to the end. Actually the tech is sometimes pretty cool intrinsicly, though the lawyers on the list may object. >It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather >than set it back. The VC's are crashing after their binge, shhh... From measl at mfn.org Fri Aug 31 16:45:24 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:45:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <20010831111233.A23259@cluebot.com> Message-ID: I reply to multiple nodes when present in the original as I have seen some history of one node seeing things, and another not. When it comes in on two nodes (to me), it generally goes out on two nodes. If there is a... hrmmm.. "preferable" way to handle this, feel free to mention it Declan. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org --------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:12:33 -0400 > From: Declan McCullagh > To: measl at mfn.org > Cc: cypherpunks at lne.com > Subject: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot > > Is it necessary to send this message to cypherpunks twice? > > -Declan > > --- > From: measl at mfn.org > Subject: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot > To: cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com > Cc: cypherpunks at lne.com > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:21:45 -0500 (CDT) > -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From gbroiles at well.com Fri Aug 31 18:48:24 2001 From: gbroiles at well.com (Greg Broiles) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:48:24 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010831183757.03a22020@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 05:31 PM 8/31/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: >Sure. But to what extent can you collaborate without a)approaching full- >blown collusion or b) getting taken for a ride in spite of your best >efforts? When you talk about "collaborating" and ZKS selling beta software to the NSA, are you saying you've got information that ZKS gave the NSA access to more information than the general public got, and/or that the NSA got their access or information meaningfully earlier than the general public? If that's the case, that's interesting, but that's too serious a claim to let pass by as an unstated implication. If that's not the case - and they had the same access to the Freedom beta code that the rest of us outsiders/Cypherpunks/critics/commentators did - then I don't see an issue here. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles at well.com "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids From gil_hamilton at hotmail.com Fri Aug 31 18:49:56 2001 From: gil_hamilton at hotmail.com (Gil Hamilton) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:49:56 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Nomen Nescio writes: > [snip...] crypto anarchy has the best chance of >survival under a democratic government [... snip] What a comedian! - GH _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 15:54:02 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:54:02 -0400 Subject: speech + action In-Reply-To: <3B8FD09A.3F0BF50E@lsil.com>; from mmotyka@lsil.com on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700 References: <3B8FD09A.3F0BF50E@lsil.com> Message-ID: <20010831185402.A429@cluebot.com> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and > unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the > purpose of spicing up the case. Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a lot of time talking about how government officials should be assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used against you during your trial. But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power position, from which you're now backtracking. -Declan From measl at mfn.org Fri Aug 31 17:20:57 2001 From: measl at mfn.org (measl at mfn.org) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 19:20:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010831194940.02124a60@mail.well.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: > I suggest you make a habit of copying *all* cypherpunks > nodes -- there were half a dozen at one time, right? -- on your posts to > the list. After all, there is indeed a history of one node seeing things > and another node not. > > But even that may be problematic if a node is down temporarily. Perhaps the > only way to be entirely certain all cypherpunks subscribers read your > important email is to copy everyone, all 500 or so subscribers, in a very > long CC: line. Yes, it's a lot of work, but we'll all thank you for it in > the end, I'm sure. For *you* Declan, of _course_! I'd be happy to accomodate your request. Some things never change, huh? > -Declan -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin at mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... -------------------------------------------------------------------- From georgemw at speakeasy.net Fri Aug 31 19:25:27 2001 From: georgemw at speakeasy.net (georgemw at speakeasy.net) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 19:25:27 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <20010831170705.A15046@slack.lne.com> References: ; from measl@mfn.org on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 06:45:24PM -0500 Message-ID: <3B8FE4A7.20004.CBABBDB@localhost> On 31 Aug 2001, at 17:07, Eric Murray wrote: > The various CDRs should deal with this-- they keep track of > which Message-IDs they have posted, and don't post messages > that they have already posted. They do pass those messages > on to the other CDRs that they peer with though, so by posting > two messages you're adding to the number of messages > that get sent on the "backbone"... > Is it possible to set things up so that duplicate messages are filtered out based on a message digest rather than a message ID? I'm dumb as a post and have no clue how message IDs are generated in the first place, but it seems to this simpleton that any hash function on the message body would be guarenteed to catch duplicate messages. George From nobody at dizum.com Fri Aug 31 10:50:31 2001 From: nobody at dizum.com (Nomen Nescio) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 19:50:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot Message-ID: Mark Leighton Fisher writes: > Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that > enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for > equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest > to track down and kill Afghans who converted to Christianity and are now > preaching the Word. That's absurd. The Taliban doesn't need crypto anonymity. They hold the reins of power. If they want to go after Christians, they just issue an edict. Their Islamic police stalk the streets of Kabul armed with guns and whips. They assault who they will, go where they wish. What would they need with anonymous remailers and pseudonym based credentials? The larger mistake, which others have made as well, is that these technologies are "tools" which, once created, may be used by everyone. Granted, with a basic encryption program this may be the case. (And indeed bin Laden is already using this technology, http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001-02-05-binladen.htm.) But the more sophisticated technologies are not self-contained tools. They require a supported and maintained infrastructure to operate. Anonymous posters are painfully aware of how inadequate the current remailer system is. A truly reliable and effective anonymity technology will be more like a service than a tool. This means that the operators choose to whom they will market and sell their services. This was one of the main points of the original message. You can't just deploy a technology and hope that someone finds it useful. You need to identify and target a market segment where the value exceeds the cost. And Tim May himself raised the issue of further looking for profitable markets which are morally acceptable. He sometimes seems reluctant to admit it, but the point of crypto anarchy is to improve the world by reducing the impact of government coercion. It's not supposed to be a nihilistic attempt to tear down institutions just for the sake of destruction. Any cypherpunk who creates a privacy technology which targets bin Laden and his cohorts as a market is deluding himself if he thinks he is making the world a better place. You can say all the nasty things you like about Western civilization, but crypto anarchy has the best chance of survival under a democratic government that pays at least lip service to values of individual freedom. You who believe that the U.S. government is the epitome of evil should spend some time living in Afghanistan. See how far you get with your crypto technologies in a country which has banned the internet, vcrs, satellite dishes, television, movies and music. The point is that cypherpunks have a goal. The technology is not the end, but the means to the end. The end is a world with more freedom and more privacy. Getting there is not easy, the path is not obvious. And it is certainly not inevitable, as the past ten years of failure should have made clear. It is important to identify markets which will advance the cause rather than set it back. Tim May made a good start on this in his earlier posting. Those who reject the idea of judging groups and markets by their morality are the ones who are missing the point. From declan at well.com Fri Aug 31 16:52:32 2001 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 19:52:32 -0400 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <20010831111233.A23259@cluebot.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010831194940.02124a60@mail.well.com> At 06:45 PM 8/31/01 -0500, measl at mfn.org wrote: >I reply to multiple nodes when present in the original as I have seen some >history of one node seeing things, and another not. When it comes in on >two nodes (to me), it generally goes out on two nodes. > >If there is a... hrmmm.. "preferable" way to handle this, feel free to >mention it Declan. A preferable way? I suggest you make a habit of copying *all* cypherpunks nodes -- there were half a dozen at one time, right? -- on your posts to the list. After all, there is indeed a history of one node seeing things and another node not. But even that may be problematic if a node is down temporarily. Perhaps the only way to be entirely certain all cypherpunks subscribers read your important email is to copy everyone, all 500 or so subscribers, in a very long CC: line. Yes, it's a lot of work, but we'll all thank you for it in the end, I'm sure. -Declan From wealthbuilders_2001 at hotmail.com Fri Aug 31 21:05:00 2001 From: wealthbuilders_2001 at hotmail.com (International Wealth Builders) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:05:00 -0700 Subject: DON'T BORROW MONEY! DON'T GET IN MORE DEBT! Message-ID: <200109010338.UAA14256@toad.com> Hello Friend, DON'T BORROW MONEY! SUPPOSE THERE WAS A WAY TO: Pay off a 30-year mortgage in much less time! Pay off your credit card debts! Pay rents and leases! Pay phone, utility, etc. bills! Pay off business loans! Pay off student loans! Pay judgments, child support, IRS liens! WELL....There is! NO OBLIGATION for free information on how The Debt Payment Club can help pay your debts, and...you don't pay them back - EVER! NO Refinancing - NO Monthly Payments NO Ruined Credit - NO Qualifying! CLUB MEMBERSHIP AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE! We have members in over 27 Countries and we are over 5 years old! So far The Debt Payment Club has paid... -over $4,000 of Mary W.'s debts from Cocoa, FL -over $1,500 of Mary S.'s debts in Butler, PA -over $31,000 of Mark D.'s debts in Bradenton, FL -over $40,000 for C.J. from B.C. Canada -over $120,000 for Grace B. from Banon,OR There's nothing like it: The Debt Payment Club! DPC Helps Pay off your debts ... all kinds, up to $100,000! Over 2.2 million in personal and business debts have been paid so far ... both nationally and internationally! As of 4/10/2001, we have paid $1,407,723.15 of The Debt Payment Club members' debts! and we are resolving over $5,000,000 in credit card and mortgage debt. Why don't you give us a call and let us help you? 1-818-763-1000 extension 10846 Thanks, Dana Brown DPC ID 10846 From mangawhore at aol.com Fri Aug 31 21:21:20 2001 From: mangawhore at aol.com (mangawhore at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:21:20 Subject: Alien Tentacle Reaming! Message-ID: <848.838463.816468@aol.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 2452 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcmay at got.net Fri Aug 31 21:42:57 2001 From: tcmay at got.net (Tim May) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:42:57 -0700 Subject: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200109010446.f814k0f15921@slack.lne.com> On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 01:27 PM, Faustine wrote: > On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: >> Tim wrote: >>> But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design >>> eventually. >> If getting the design "eventually" were good enough, why the keen >> interest in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. > >> Perhaps the NSA wanted to use the product without making illegal >> copies? > >> Your earlier point (that they wished to reverse-engineer the product) >> is >> in fact undermined by this fact that they bought N copies. > > > Unless you believe reverse engineering is only useful for making pirated > copies, there's no reason to assume any sort of contradiction at all. > > As if the NSA would use anything from the private sector they didn't > know > inside out. Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for brute-force cryptanalyis, it appears you also believe the myth about the mighty NSA knowing more than the private sector. You _really_ need to get an education on these matters. --Tim May From jamesd at echeque.com Fri Aug 31 21:55:47 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:55:47 -0700 Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: References: <3B8F6436.22971.2EBA01F@localhost> Message-ID: <3B9007E3.23239.56AF97A@localhost> -- James A. Donald: > > A revolution [unlike a mere coup] involves mass > > participation, and widespread spontaneous defiance of state > > authority. Jim Choate wrote: > A revolution is when one part of a populace takes up arms > against another part of the populace. When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 2SpGz0TiMYvSrzuctmijLs95p4tWle7YBcUpgmPG 4QLxYirnCv7EV53IoXrE0Qh8sQAp/NDwjVjknmJ9y From jamesd at echeque.com Fri Aug 31 21:55:47 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:55:47 -0700 Subject: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation In-Reply-To: <3B8FDE78.316951D4@lsil.com> Message-ID: <3B9007E3.6741.56AF966@localhost> -- On 31 Aug 2001, at 11:59, mmotyka at lsil.com wrote: > First, you depend more than you think on government actions for > essentials even though they have private brand labels. > > Second, why do you think that when someone is a government > employee they are automatically inferior to everyone in the > private sector? That's irrational. If someone in the private sector fails to please the customer, he does not get any money. If someone in the government sector fails to please the customer, tough luck for the customer. If the customer tries to do anything about it, he has the customer beaten up. Unsurprisingly, you get better service and products from the private sector. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG a21eN5yt4PeF/lTnRV4tQl5qv2vdpoch9zmrNw3H 4hJPCdOanWvOU31Y5QoQl0j0qowqJFwBL1WN8WEr7 From bill.stewart at pobox.com Fri Aug 31 22:12:47 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:12:47 -0700 Subject: USA Today Editorial on Scarfo case, 8/30/01 Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010831220740.02f78cd0@idiom.com> On the domestic spying front, USA Today has an editorial disapproving of the FBI's Scarfo wiretap, and an editorial response by Edward Allen, former FBI deputy assistant director (the FBI can't reply directly because of the judge's gag order.) The FBI front says predictable things about how the FBI needs to use advanced technology to keep up with the high-tech dangerous criminals, and how asking for technical information on sources and methods is going too far. USA Today's editorial is on the right side of the issue, in some parts aggressively so (yay!) though they soft-pedal the legal problems in the FBI's warrants. They do have a moderate level of understanding of the technical issues, and make some nice points on the value of open review of government activities, pointing out that the outside reviews of Carnivore found flaws in it that were hindering the FBI. "The FBI's record on computer-related privacy issues leaves little reason to believe that the agency can make reasonable choices without scrutiny." They also say, after acknowledging that Scarfo is "unsympathetic", "But a decision in favor of the FBI's secrecy stance would have far-reaching consequences - not only putting regular users' Internet privacy at risk, but also setting a precedent that could allow the FBI to act with impunity in future disputes over newly devised surveillance methods." From bill.stewart at pobox.com Fri Aug 31 22:13:00 2001 From: bill.stewart at pobox.com (Bill Stewart) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:13:00 -0700 Subject: China Stories - US Busting Crypto Exports, Fighting Censorship by Corrupting Safeweb Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20010831213451.02f6f600@idiom.com> The NYT and USA Today both have articles about the Customs busting two US Chinese guys for exporting US military crypto gear. It's the KIV-7HS, made by our old buddies at Mykotronx (who made Clipper.) The NYT said the Feds were worried that if the Chinese reverse engineered it, they'd be able to crack lots of our crypto secrets. Normally I'd say that if that's the case, it's really shoddy crypto - but one of the interesting things Bamford mentions in "Body of Secrets" is that one of the US spies, I think Hansen or Walker, had been feeding crypto keys to the Russians, so the crypto gear they got from the Pueblo made it possible for them to crack years of messages; perhaps they're worried about the same thing here. Eugene Hsu of Blue Springs, MO and David Yang of Temple City CA face a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail and $1M fine. Meanwhile, the NYT had a front-page story that one of the US propaganda agencies is proposing to help fight censorship in China by promoting Safeweb, which is partly funded by In-Q-It, the CIA venture fund. They've apparently got about 100 servers, and the Triangle Boy feature makes it possible for them to keep changing IP addresses to make blocking harder. I assume if there are also Chinese Spies using it, the CIA will be able to get the operators to rat out their identities... But the main use will be to feed lots of news into China. I'd already mistrusted Safeweb - not their honesty, but their technology, since they require you to enable Javascript to use their tools. Yes, it makes it easy to write cool and powerful tools, but even if _their_ Javascript is perfectly secure, the fact that you need to have it turned on leaves you vulnerable whenever you read other web pages. (Also, their Javascript is slightly buggy; I've had trouble with window size and positioning issues.) A third China Card in the news is the GAO's announcement that they suspect that Code Red originated at a university in Guangdong. Keith Rhodes, GAO's chief technologist, gave written testimony to the House Government Reform subcommittee, but didn't return US Today's calls. Of course, the real blame belongs to Microsoft - and US Today, who are getting surprisingly technical this week, has a couple of articles about the recent Hotmail/Passport hacks, in which security consultant and former Yahoo security advisor Jeremiah Grossman, who had recently cracked Hotmail in three lines of code, now has it down to one line... This is another cross-site scripting attack. From frissell at panix.com Fri Aug 31 19:33:29 2001 From: frissell at panix.com (Duncan Frissell) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:33:29 -0400 Subject: stump go boom, and keeping kanooks at bay In-Reply-To: <3B902A58.9E61C598@black.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010831223258.0283e4a0@frissell@brillig.panix.com> At 05:22 PM 8/31/01 -0700, Subcommander Bob wrote: > >How can we stop > >that Canadian armoured column slicing through Buffalo and heading down >the > >Thruway towards NYC? > >Wait for a snowstorm. Canuk tanks run better in snow. DCF From jamesd at echeque.com Fri Aug 31 22:56:07 2001 From: jamesd at echeque.com (jamesd at echeque.com) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:56:07 -0700 Subject: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison In-Reply-To: References: <3B8ED027.13665.A94495@localhost> Message-ID: <3B901607.23698.5A2392D@localhost> -- > > Whether Aimee is a fed or not, her quite genuine ignorance > > made her incapable of knowing what views sounded > > cypherpunkish, and what views sounded violently anti > > cypherpunkish. If she is a fed, she probably also goes > > around buying crack and pretending to be a thirteen year old > > interested in sex talk. And if the feds were to assign a fed > > to our list, that is the kind of fed they would assign. That > > is all they have. On 31 Aug 2001, at 15:21, Faustine wrote: > Bah, it's dangerous to be so sure. And all the fevered talk > about Aimee being a fed is hysterical. Feds tend to stick out in the same way she does. That does not prove she is a fed of course, it is not even particularly good evidence that she is a fed, but there are feds on this list. > Haven't you ever gone to a usenet group and baited people just > for the hell of it because you were bored? She does not know enough about us to bait us correctly -- she also issues appeasing win-their-confidence stuff, and it is the wrong stuff. That incompetent buttering up very fed like behavior. Someone who does not know enough to issue the right win-their-confidence stuff usually does not care enough to issue win-their-confidence stuff. Of course it could be she is merely incompetently trying to douse the flames she has incompetently raised. The distinctive characteristic of an undercover fed is that they are pretending to be someone they are not, and doing it badly, confused about what their role is, and uninformed of how real people in that role act -- for example her recent flame againt ZKS. Real people who are really concerned about the security of ZKS, and really hate and fear the NSA, do not talk like that. Now quite possibly she is just upset by getting continually flamed, and is just putting on a rather bad act to persuade us she is on our side. But putting on a rather bad act is also something feds do. Incompetent acting is does not mean one is a fed, but if one is a fed, it means one acts incompetently. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bvNfX+TTSpcSyw5LeyYoLXnLQ9EH6kfdobAIiWak 4NRdJFF3U6D8FTP9TYHQBiDeMBYxQri3bc6UwVsLe From ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com Fri Aug 31 22:10:19 2001 From: ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Jim Choate) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 00:10:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot In-Reply-To: <3B9007E3.23239.56AF97A@localhost> Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 jamesd at echeque.com wrote: > When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution? No, that was the consequence of one that had already worked. They were just cleaning up the left overs. Had Hitler not already won the power then it wouldn't have been necessary. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- From elyn at consect.com Fri Aug 31 21:27:36 2001 From: elyn at consect.com (Elyn Wollensky) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 00:27:36 -0400 Subject: stump go boom, and keeping kanooks at bay References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010831223258.0283e4a0@frissell@brillig.panix.com> Message-ID: <03ea01c1329e$7f384420$6b8d1d18@nyc.rr.com> > At 05:22 PM 8/31/01 -0700, Subcommander Bob wrote: > > >How can we stop > > >that Canadian armoured column slicing through Buffalo and heading down > >the > > >Thruway towards NYC? > > > >Wait for a snowstorm. > > Canuk tanks run better in snow. Have you ever been on the NY thruway - especially in the snow? After 8 or 10 hours of backed up traffic they'd turn around ... & they still wouldn't be closer then half-way (at most) elyn > DCF > From fm at espace.net Fri Aug 31 17:02:21 2001 From: fm at espace.net (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 01:02:21 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [PGP-USERS] ANNOUNCE: PGP Source Code Now Available For Download Message-ID: --- begin forwarded text From geer at world.std.com Fri Aug 31 22:38:39 2001 From: geer at world.std.com (Dan Geer) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 01:38:39 -0400 Subject: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:25:01 EDT." <5.0.2.1.1.20010829231620.02fa57a0@idiom.com> Message-ID: <200109010538.BAA26680@world.std.com> . "Below, we present an implementation of a parasitic computer . using the checksum function. In order for this to occur, . one needs to design a special message that coerces a target server . into performing the desired computation." This is the same principle that underlies denial of service attacks -- the irreducible residual vulnerability of a system to denial of service is proportional to the amount of work (or time) that system must do (or consume) before it can conclude its initial authorization decision. Ironically, the more precise and complex that authorization decision process, the greater the amount of work that the active (initiating) side of the connection can call on the passive side to perform. This critically bears on protocol and application security design. --dan From freematt at coil.com Fri Aug 31 23:45:46 2001 From: freematt at coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 02:45:46 -0400 Subject: Oppose the Expansion of Government Secrecy! Message-ID: