date:20010831


--
On 28 Aug 2001, at 7:13, Jim Choate wrote:
 What makes you think that new regime who used your tool to take 
 over won't then shoot you and take 'your profits'. By 
 participating you may in fact be signing your own death 
 warrant.

All the liberty that there is in the world today results from the 
Dutch revolt, the Glorious Revolution, and the American 
Revolution.  No oppressive regimes, with the exception of the 
Chinese, were produced by revolution.

Every successful revolution has been a major step forward for 
human liberty (the Russian communist revolution was not a 
revolution, but merely a coup by a little conspiracy.  Same for 
the Sandinista revolution).  Even in revolutions that failed,
like the french, were the old system was swiftly restored by
Napoleon, the power of the old regime was fatally undermined.

The outcome of the recent revolutions in Somalia and Ethiopia may 
be piss poor by Western standards, but compared to the rest of 
Africa they are pretty good, and compared to the previous 
regimes, they are wonderful. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 bstOJvcE7yZ9wE8/TgMBfXDE6jExhrBCsGAb/NnK
 4Y74xyXZqu/wy4YGqo28RkMUFEWDhUUMk7L9BBPRe

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

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 said, persons or companies must obtain a license from the
 department for each item on the list before

Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation

2001-08-31 Thread measl



On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  wrote :
 
 zap
 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 QUOTE it here as well.

 Make well
 considered choices. Look at the power industry deregulation in CA. Too
 much, too quickly and poorly crafted. 

I am not endowed with any expertise on this topic, so I cannot make any
considered judgement on the example.  Having thrown out the required
caveat, it seems to me that the deregulation was only a small part of the
problem.  Of course, I am truly talking out of my ass on this topic, so I
will leave it here...

 By all means let's improve the
 educational opportunities in this country but not with some stooopid
 knee-jerk approach. 

The fact that you consider this a knee jerk response does not make it
so: you have no way of knowing how much or little I have looked into this
topic.  As someone who has had 4 kids in various public and private
schools, as well as person who has personally attended two private and
three public schools, I have had ample incentive to look at homeschooling
when it began to cross my radar about three years ago.

My beliefs regarding homeschooling are very definitely _not_
knee-jerk reactions.  And my statements regarding the state of the public
schools is from personal first hand experience, both as a student, and as
a parent.

 Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing
 war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good.

What right wing war chants?  Where the hell do you get the idea I'm a
right wing type of guy?  Just because I believe that home schooling is a
Good Thing and that the public schools are a life threatening repository
of brainwashing and bad karma?  Last I heard, it took a LOT more than this
to qualify as right wing.


 I know the masses are a bit thick but do you 
 want them to be even thicker? 
 
 To be frank, sending kids to public schools is practically *requiring*
 that they become thick, merely in order to _survive_.
 
 This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure
 as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue.

Again with the knee jerk label.  If it's a view you disagree with, it's a
knee-jerk reaction, huh?

 Sounds like the sort of
 foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves.

I wouldn't know, I don't have much use for Rush, and have only heard
*about* his show.  However, we again see the disparaging of view with
which you disagree as terms such as foolishness.  This position is
hardly persuasive.  Perhaps you can enlighten us as to WHY it is so
foolish?  Perhaps you can trade some FIRST HAND information you have on
the state of the public schools, so that we may more readily examine the
ISSUES before us, and not your assertions that all positions you disfavor
are knee jerk reactions?
 
  I wish there were more ( and better ) educational choices and that those
  choices were reflected reasonably in the financial systems but every
  proposal I've seen so far sucks moose bladder through a hairy straw.
 
 While you claim to favor choices, you have just argued that these choices
 should not be available.
 
 Uh, nope, that's not what I said. I said I would be in favor of
 carefully considered proposals. Proposals that are fair to individuals
 and beneficial to the community.

No.  Your post did make several statements which claimed to favor
proposals that were fair to the community, but NOT to
individuals.  Personally, I think the Good Of The Many depends totally
upon the Good Of The Few.  The macrocosmic must fail if the microcosmic is
broken.

 Again, the two goals are neither
 completely compatible nor mutually exclusive.

While I actually agree with this assertion to a degree, I would also
caveat it with (1) I can only supply a very weak degree of confidence in
the truth of this assertion, and (2) I am unable to compellingly argue
either for or against it.  This type of conundrum should lead the more
analytic amongst us to examine these issues on a

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

2001-08-31 Thread measl



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:
  
  much true stuff snipped
  
   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 giggle!

 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: 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:
 
 much true stuff snipped
 
  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: 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

NOTICE: You Are Approved

2001-08-31 Thread mortzone10

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
ourmailings to receive them. As a result, we have retained the
services of an independent 3rd party toadminister our list management
and remove list (http://www.removeyou.com/). This is not
SPAM. If youdo not wish to receive further mailings, please click
below and enter your email at the bottomof the page. You may then
rest-assured that you will never receive another email from usagain.
http://www.removeyou.com/ The 21st
Century Solution. I.D. # 030240

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: 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: 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: News: U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship

2001-08-31 Thread Phillip H. Zakas


 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: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

2001-08-31 Thread Nomen Nescio


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.

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.

Your Chance #30A8

2001-08-31 Thread Nelson J. Foxx


*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

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

2001-08-31 Thread Paul Pomes


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

#1 INTERNET MARKETING SOLUTION 0118

2001-08-31 Thread Amy_Amber2

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

GOT CASH? If not....you WILL!!

2001-08-31 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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.

IS SNORING AFFECTING YOUR SLEEP ?

2001-08-31 Thread stopsnoringtoday








 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. 

 *

Re: U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship

2001-08-31 Thread Adam Shostack


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

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

2001-08-31 Thread Fisher Mark


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 Tim May Question

2001-08-31 Thread Ken Brown


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: Borders UK and privacy

2001-08-31 Thread John Young


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 Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

2001-08-31 Thread Ken Brown


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: 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: News: U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship

2001-08-31 Thread Ken Brown


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: your mail

2001-08-31 Thread Duncan Frissell

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+explosiveskeyword=isbn=order=TITLEordering=ASCdispCurr=USDbinding=Any+Bindingmin=max=timeout=20match=YStoreAbebooks=onStoreAlibris=onStoreAntiqbook=onStoreBiblion=onStoreElephantbooks=onStoreHalf=onStoreILAB=onStoreJustBooks=onStorePowells=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


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: speech + action

2001-08-31 Thread \Espaço Vital Virtual\ Espaço Vital Virtual


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

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.

Tambémuma 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 
  venderalvarás de soltura pede (e obtém) 
  aposentadoria
  Onze anos depois de acidente, 
  ex-mecânicoreceberá 3.000 salários mínimos de indenização da 
  CBTU
  Desembargador cearense 
  éafastado
  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 
profissionaisque 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 normassobre 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 emailEspaç[EMAIL PROTECTED].

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: 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: 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


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



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 --'-

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, overbroad, not specific, not credible,

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

2001-08-31 Thread Nomen Nescio


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.

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: 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: 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: 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

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.

Cellphone Signal Booster $14.95

2001-08-31 Thread MichelleKnox

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).

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
still a socialist program. Funny that, coming from a generally
right-wing

Re: News: U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship

2001-08-31 Thread Faustine


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: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

2001-08-31 Thread georgemw


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: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison

2001-08-31 Thread Faustine


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: 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: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

2001-08-31 Thread Morlock Elloi


 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

2001-08-31 Thread Meyer Wolfsheim


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: News: U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship

2001-08-31 Thread Faustine


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: 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 QUOTE it here as well.


Here's the original :

Another facet is that the well-to-do are attempting to remove their
funds from the systems so they can use those funds to educate their
children as they choose. A voucher system would surely benefit me
financially. This is a reasonable desire but it will have a negative
effect on the public school systems and a subsequent negative effect on
the society as a whole. I know the masses are a bit thick but do you
want them to be even thicker? And not all bright people come from
priviledged backgrounds. Do you want to limit the opportunities for some
of the brightest kids in the country before they've even had a chance?
I'm not saying that it (vouchers or other defunding) should be ruled out
but you should at least think about the implications a bit. 


I would summarize this paragraph, poorly written as it may be, as
follows :

1) Some people wish to remove their monies from the public schools and
make their own choices.

2) Here are some possible negative effects of that action.

3) I'm not against it but at least think about the implications before
acting.

Looks pretty simple to me. Doesn't really take a position other than
fine, measure twice, cut once if you want my vote.

I am not endowed with any expertise on this topic, so I cannot make any
considered judgement on the example.  Having thrown out the required
caveat, it seems to me that the deregulation was only a small part of the
problem.  Of course, I am truly talking out of my ass on this topic, so I
will leave it here...

I'm no expert on the details either but it looks like a chant of
deregulate didn't work out so well.

Expect to hear more chants of deregulate and privatize when it comes
to things like power and water. I'm not sure which I prefer, a corporate
dictatorship or a police state.

The fact that you consider this a knee jerk response does not make it
so: you have no way of knowing how much or little I have looked into this
topic.  As someone who has had 4 kids in various public and private
schools, as well as person who has personally attended two private and
three public schools, I have had ample incentive to look at homeschooling
when it began to cross my radar about three years ago.

My beliefs regarding homeschooling are very definitely _not_
knee-jerk reactions.  And my statements regarding the state of the public
schools is from personal first hand experience, both as a student, and as
a parent.

 Try and do it in one fell swoop based on right-wing
 war chants and I'll bet you do more harm than good.

What right wing war chants?  Where the hell do you get the idea I'm a
right wing type of guy?  Just because I believe that home schooling is a
Good Thing and that the public schools are a life threatening repository
of brainwashing and bad karma?  Last I heard, it took a LOT more than this
to qualify as right wing.

 I know the masses are a bit thick but do you 
 want them to be even thicker? 
 
 To be frank, sending kids to public schools is practically *requiring*
 that they become thick, merely in order to _survive_.
 
 This statement is neither entirely true nor entirely false but it sure
 as hell is a knee-jerk reaction to the issue.

Again with the knee jerk label.  If it's a view you disagree with, it's a
knee-jerk reaction, huh?

 Sounds like the sort of
 foolishness that Rush Limbaugh vomits on the airwaves.

I wouldn't know, I don't have much use for Rush, and have only heard
*about* his show.  However, we again see the disparaging of view with
which you disagree as terms such as foolishness.  This position is
hardly persuasive.  Perhaps you can enlighten us as to WHY it is so
foolish?  Perhaps you can trade some FIRST HAND information you have on
the state of the public schools, so that we may more readily examine the
ISSUES before us, and not your assertions that all positions you disfavor
are knee jerk reactions?

I would say that I use the term knee-jerk and right-wing war chants as
labels for the idea that all public schools are somehow seriously
inferior to private schools or home schooling. Maybe the term knee-jerk
is as poor as the idea of lumping all public schools into a single
assessment.

Furthermore, I think if you read what I've said you would not find that
I flat out disagree with your attitudes about education but

An efficient Scheme for Proving a Shuffle

2001-08-31 Thread Fisher Mark


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


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

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