RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
-- > > 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
Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
At 02:29 PM 8/31/01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Slashdot | Sklyarov, Elcomsoft Plead Not Guilty
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 /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 11:59:04AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: secure IRC/messaging successor
> 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
An efficient Scheme for Proving a Shuffle
"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[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomson multimedia, Inc.Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_
Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 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 th
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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.
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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-
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
> 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
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] "We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids
RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
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.
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
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
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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.
Re: secure IRC/messaging successor
gale has scaling problems to large numbers of users, in particular for group messaging. -derek Eugene Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/";>leitl > __ > ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 > 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 > > > > > - > The Cryptography Mailing List > Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]PGP key available
Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
Duncan Frissell wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Cellphone Signal Booster $14.95
Now you can BOOST your reception on any phone, pager, or two way radio for only $14.95! PLUS you get a FREE Radiation Sheild! !!!FREE SHIPPING!!! Works on any cell phone, pager, or two way radio! Boost your digital or analog cellular, PCS, or cordless phone signal as well as your pager or two way radio signal for better reception in large buildings, tunnels, elevators, and many other places where the signal may get weak causing static, missed calls, dropped calls, etc. This incredible internal antenna booster works on any Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson, Audiovox, Samsung, LGIC, Nextel, Sprint, Neopoint, Hyundai, or any other brand digital or analog cellphone or PCS wireless phone (As per the manufacturer of this Internal Antenna Booster). Please note that it will not provide signal where there is none. It can only show improvement where there is already a weak signal. On cellphones, it fits between the body of the cell phone and the cell phone battery. On pagers and 2 way radio's, simply stick it on a flat surface of the body of the product. It is very easy to install! Installation instructions are included with purchase. Availability: Usually ships the next business day. Internal Antenna Amplifier: Boost your digital or analog cellular, PCS, or cordless phone signal as well as your pager or 2 way radio signal for better reception in medical buildings, tunnels, elevators, and many other places where the signal may get weak. On cellphones, it fits between body of the cell phone and the battery BUY YOURS NOW! Unsubscribe Information This email was sent to the owner of the following Account/Username: maxuser To unsubscribe from future mailings of this type, visit This Page StealthLaunch PopLaunch1-800-804-4352 The FIRST encrypted email friendly Hosting by M@sTer@GeNTs. Attempting to infringe upon the copyrights of PopLaunch or attempting to harm the natural course of business of PopLaunch users will be subject to SEVERE civil and/or criminal penalties (including but not limited to attempting to hack, Denial of Service Attacks and/or broadcast the location of client sites). ALL clients not honoring remove requests will be terminated (Call 1-800-804-4352 alternatively or for assistance with the PopLaunch browser). Copyright ÿA9 1997-2001 StealthLaunch PopLaunch. All rights reserved. Legal Agreement | Privacy Policy.
Enemies of the People...the customers of strong crypto
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".
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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
Re: CDR: Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution
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 /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: speech + action
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: speech + action
Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
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.
Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution
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, overb
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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.
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
-- James A. Donald: > > (the Russian communist revolution was not a revolution, but > > merely a coup by a little conspiracy. Same for the > > Sandinista revolution). [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
-- 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
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
-- 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
Re: Stealth Computing Abuses TCP Checksums
--On Wednesday, 29 August, 2001 23:25 -0700 Bill Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Notícias Jurídicas: 6a.feira, 31 de agosto de 2001 no Espaço Vital Virtual
Na condição de administradora dos saites www.espacovital.com (sem br) e www.marcoadvogados.com.br, a www.MPSOFT.com.br está lhe informando os títulos dos casos judiciais publicados nesta sexta-feira (31) no Jornal do Comércio: Hospital Conceição condenado por erro fatal em urografia Estado responde pela morte de escrivã no Palácio da Polícia Mulher depõe nua em foro canadense As notícias acima podem ser acessadas em www.espacovital.com/coluna. Também uma notícia importante para o exercício da Advocacia: Sociedades de advogados devem depositar judicialmente o valor da Cofins (na matéria, todas as indicações sobre os procedimentos, código da receita, etc.) No mesmo saite www.espacovital.com/asmaisnovas, o leitor encontrará também: STF suspende novas formas de seqüestros de renda pública Desembargador amazonense acusado de vender alvarás de soltura pede (e obtém) aposentadoria Onze anos depois de acidente, ex-mecânico receberá 3.000 salários mínimos de indenização da CBTU Desembargador cearense é afastado Associação dos Magistrados rebate críticas de FHC (leia a nota oficial) Juízes cariocas litigam por vagas no Tribunal Eleitoral Novos critérios para petições por fax na Justiça do Trabalho Atenciosamente, MP SOFT Consultoria em Informática www.MPSOFT.com.br Consultoria em Informática Jurídica Perícia e Auditoria em Sistemas Informatizados e Internet Administração de Homepages Rua Maracá, 267 - Porto Alegre CNPJ: 90.013.111/0001-25 Fone/Fax: 0xx51 32-411-300 Administradora dos saites www.marcoadvogados.com.br e www.espacovital.com (sem br) Esta mensagem está sendo enviada para operadores do Direito e profissionais que possam ter interesse em informações de casos judiciais. Seu nome foi incluído por indicação de amigos ou associação da qual é filiado, além de prospecção mercadológica em saites da Internet relacionados com ADVOCACIA e/ou DIREITO. Não há, na legislação brasileira, texto legal que proíba, o envio de mensagens eletrônicas, nem que o regulamente. Um referencial que adotamos são as normas sobre correio eletrônico aceitas nos Estados Unidos, Seção 301, § (a) (2) (c) do Decreto S.1618, título terceiro, aprovadas durante a "105a. Legislatura do Senado Americano, em 1999, sobre Bases Normativas do SPAM" , definindo que um e-mail não poderá ser considerado SPAM quando incluir uma forma de ser removido. Se deseja que seu nome seja excluído, basta enviar e-mail sem texto para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Caso queira indicar alguém para receber o Espaço Vital Virtual, por gentileza, envie uma mensagem com o email Espaç[EMAIL PROTECTED].
Re: speech + action
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 10:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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...
The USGS on hacking
Hacking is the main method now used in peregrine falcon restoration. Hacking involves placing 4-5 five week old peregrine chicks in an artificial structure on a cliff face, tower or building. The birds are cared for by human hack site attendants until released for fledging when they are 42-45 days old. Hacking success depends on safety from predators, minimal human disturbance and the presence of suffcient prey. The desired result of this effort is the return of hacked birds to the general area of the hack site as breeding adults, helping to reestablish a breeding population. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/others/sdrare/species/falcpere.htm Suitable for framing in computer labs... and autoreplying to those who ask about hacking..
Re: your mail
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
Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Is it necessary to send this message to cypherpunks twice? -Declan --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:21:45 -0500 (CDT)
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
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
Re: Borders UK and privacy
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.
Re: The Tim May Question
"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
Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
RE: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Title: RE: Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot >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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
>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[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomson multimedia, Inc.Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_
Re: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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
IS SNORING AFFECTING YOUR SLEEP ?
SNORING-IS IT AFFECTING YOUR LIFE? Tired of waking up at all hours? Tired of not getting a good nights sleep? Tired of waking up every morning to hear how you snored the night before? Tired of sleeping in separate rooms? Just TIRED of being TIRED? It is not your fault, there is a solution! SNOR-GON IS HERE ! ! SNOR-GON is a safe, natural solution to your snoring problem * Works first time, every time * All natural * No side effects * Guaranteed results For more information on your special introductory internet offer: CALL TOLL FREE (888) 806-0517 NOW Solve your problem, make the call & change your life for the better. be removed : by sending a reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word remove in the subject line. *
GOT CASH? If not....you WILL!!
TRUE PASSIVE INCOME OF up to $53,719, in months NOT YEARS!! NO Selling. NO Recruiting. NO Advertising! NO Calls To Make. NO Meetings To Attend! NO KIDDING! GET STARTED FOR AS LITTLE AS $50 and EXPERIENCE ROCK-SOLID RESIDUAL INCOME! 5 Year Old U.S. Company has NEVER Missed A Check! Those Who Join Tomorrow Will Be Placed Under Those Who Join Today! SO HURRY, email me back (with "CASH" as the subject) so I can send your more info and so you can start making REAL cash! This is not SPAM. Your email address was obtained from a safe Opt-In List. If you do not belong to any such list or if you wish to be removed from this list please reply with "REMOVE" as the subject. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
#1 INTERNET MARKETING SOLUTION 0118
Title: Have you ever Experienced the Power of True Targeted E Have you ever Experienced the Power of True Targeted E-mail Advertising for your Business, Product or Service??? Read Below to Discover WHY we are regarded as the best Targeted bulk E-mail Service on the Net. Our company has taken Targeted E-mailing to the next Dimension! Our research shows that "true" targeted addresses are 50 times more effective than general addresses. Our company's ultimate strategic advantage is our newly developed software that has the ability to perform targeted searches of unparalleled quality. We use a keyword search to extract highly targeted email addresses that match YOUR Personalized Target Market. You choose the Key-Words, We plug your Key-Words in and extract your Highly Targeted, Personalized e-mail address the same day as your mailing. Your Results are Guaranteed! If you are ready to launch your Business beyond your Wildest Dreams. Simply Click on this e-mail link [EMAIL PROTECTED] You will receive an instant follow up message that will direct you to our Website. Your Partners in Advertising! This is a one time mailing, no need to remove
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
At 09:12 PM 8/30/01 -0500, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Your Chance #30A8
*Earn $2000 - $5000 weekly-starting within 3-12 weeks. Make what you deserve! *Own your own business. Control your destiny! *Money Freedom=Time Freedom *54% + Gross Profit Margins *No Selling *Work from home, No overhead, or employees. *Fabulous Training & Support *Not traditional MLM, many times more profitable *Multibillion Dollar Travel & Internet Industry The most incredible part of our business is that ALL MY CLIENTS ASK ME TO CALL THEM! DO YOU QUALIFY FOR OUR MENTOR PROGRAM? ACCEPTING ONLY A FEW NEW ASSOCIATES This is not a hobby! Serious Inquires Only!! Please reply with the following information NOW! FULL NAME: COMPLETE ADDRESS: EMAIL ADDRESS: PHONE: (Required; area code & number) BEST 2 TIMES TO CALL YOU: TO: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=tell_me_more This message is sent in compliance of the new email bill section 301. Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by the sender of this email will be stopped at no cost to you. This message is not intended for residents in the State of WA, NV, CA & VA. Screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical ability. If you are a Washington, Virginia, or California resident please remove yourself. We respect all removal requests. Please remove at: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=remove
speech + action
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.
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
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.
RE: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
> 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.
Re: Fwd: Re: Tim May and anonymous flames.
-- 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
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
-- 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
RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
-- 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
Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Fuck you back, Mike
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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...
NOTICE: You Are Approved
Title: We are Loan Specialists Express Loan Approval Center All Homeowners Qualify! Poor Credit? Not a problem! Whether your credit rating is A++ or you are "credit challenged", we have many loan programs through hundreds of lenders. Second Mortgages - We can help you get up to 125% of your homes value (ratios vary by state). Refinancing - Reduce your monthly payments and get cash back. Debt Consolidation - Combine all your bills into one, and save money every month. CLICK HERE For All Details And A Free Loan Quotation Today! 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 (http://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. # 030240
Re: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
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
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 09:12:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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...
Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. T
Re: Exporing Military encryption to China
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 sa
RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
-- > > 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
