RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
-- Whether Aimee is a fed or not, her quite genuine ignorance made her incapable of knowing what views sounded cypherpunkish, and what views sounded violently anti cypherpunkish. If she is a fed, she probably also goes around buying crack and pretending to be a thirteen year old interested in sex talk. And if the feds were to assign a fed to our list, that is the kind of fed they would assign. That is all they have. On 31 Aug 2001, at 15:21, Faustine wrote: Bah, it's dangerous to be so sure. And all the fevered talk about Aimee being a fed is hysterical. Feds tend to stick out in the same way she does. That does not prove she is a fed of course, it is not even particularly good evidence that she is a fed, but there are feds on this list. Haven't you ever gone to a usenet group and baited people just for the hell of it because you were bored? She does not know enough about us to bait us correctly -- she also issues appeasing win-their-confidence stuff, and it is the wrong stuff. That incompetent buttering up very fed like behavior. Someone who does not know enough to issue the right win-their-confidence stuff usually does not care enough to issue win-their-confidence stuff. Of course it could be she is merely incompetently trying to douse the flames she has incompetently raised. The distinctive characteristic of an undercover fed is that they are pretending to be someone they are not, and doing it badly, confused about what their role is, and uninformed of how real people in that role act -- for example her recent flame againt ZKS. Real people who are really concerned about the security of ZKS, and really hate and fear the NSA, do not talk like that. Now quite possibly she is just upset by getting continually flamed, and is just putting on a rather bad act to persuade us she is on our side. But putting on a rather bad act is also something feds do. Incompetent acting is does not mean one is a fed, but if one is a fed, it means one acts incompetently. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bvNfX+TTSpcSyw5LeyYoLXnLQ9EH6kfdobAIiWak 4NRdJFF3U6D8FTP9TYHQBiDeMBYxQri3bc6UwVsLe
China Stories - US Busting Crypto Exports, Fighting Censorship by Corrupting Safeweb
The NYT and USA Today both have articles about the Customs busting two US Chinese guys for exporting US military crypto gear. It's the KIV-7HS, made by our old buddies at Mykotronx (who made Clipper.) The NYT said the Feds were worried that if the Chinese reverse engineered it, they'd be able to crack lots of our crypto secrets. Normally I'd say that if that's the case, it's really shoddy crypto - but one of the interesting things Bamford mentions in Body of Secrets is that one of the US spies, I think Hansen or Walker, had been feeding crypto keys to the Russians, so the crypto gear they got from the Pueblo made it possible for them to crack years of messages; perhaps they're worried about the same thing here. Eugene Hsu of Blue Springs, MO and David Yang of Temple City CA face a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail and $1M fine. Meanwhile, the NYT had a front-page story that one of the US propaganda agencies is proposing to help fight censorship in China by promoting Safeweb, which is partly funded by In-Q-It, the CIA venture fund. They've apparently got about 100 servers, and the Triangle Boy feature makes it possible for them to keep changing IP addresses to make blocking harder. I assume if there are also Chinese Spies using it, the CIA will be able to get the operators to rat out their identities... But the main use will be to feed lots of news into China. I'd already mistrusted Safeweb - not their honesty, but their technology, since they require you to enable Javascript to use their tools. Yes, it makes it easy to write cool and powerful tools, but even if _their_ Javascript is perfectly secure, the fact that you need to have it turned on leaves you vulnerable whenever you read other web pages. (Also, their Javascript is slightly buggy; I've had trouble with window size and positioning issues.) A third China Card in the news is the GAO's announcement that they suspect that Code Red originated at a university in Guangdong. Keith Rhodes, GAO's chief technologist, gave written testimony to the House Government Reform subcommittee, but didn't return US Today's calls. Of course, the real blame belongs to Microsoft - and US Today, who are getting surprisingly technical this week, has a couple of articles about the recent Hotmail/Passport hacks, in which security consultant and former Yahoo security advisor Jeremiah Grossman, who had recently cracked Hotmail in three lines of code, now has it down to one line... This is another cross-site scripting attack.
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When Hitler authorized Krystalnacht, that was a revolution? No, that was the consequence of one that had already worked. They were just cleaning up the left overs. Had Hitler not already won the power then it wouldn't have been necessary. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
USA Today Editorial on Scarfo case, 8/30/01
On the domestic spying front, USA Today has an editorial disapproving of the FBI's Scarfo wiretap, and an editorial response by Edward Allen, former FBI deputy assistant director (the FBI can't reply directly because of the judge's gag order.) The FBI front says predictable things about how the FBI needs to use advanced technology to keep up with the high-tech dangerous criminals, and how asking for technical information on sources and methods is going too far. USA Today's editorial is on the right side of the issue, in some parts aggressively so (yay!) though they soft-pedal the legal problems in the FBI's warrants. They do have a moderate level of understanding of the technical issues, and make some nice points on the value of open review of government activities, pointing out that the outside reviews of Carnivore found flaws in it that were hindering the FBI. The FBI's record on computer-related privacy issues leaves little reason to believe that the agency can make reasonable choices without scrutiny. They also say, after acknowledging that Scarfo is unsympathetic, But a decision in favor of the FBI's secrecy stance would have far-reaching consequences - not only putting regular users' Internet privacy at risk, but also setting a precedent that could allow the FBI to act with impunity in future disputes over newly devised surveillance methods.
Re: kuro5hin.org || How Home-Schooling Harms the Nation
-- On 31 Aug 2001, at 11:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, you depend more than you think on government actions for essentials even though they have private brand labels. Second, why do you think that when someone is a government employee they are automatically inferior to everyone in the private sector? That's irrational. If someone in the private sector fails to please the customer, he does not get any money. If someone in the government sector fails to please the customer, tough luck for the customer. If the customer tries to do anything about it, he has the customer beaten up. Unsurprisingly, you get better service and products from the private sector. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG a21eN5yt4PeF/lTnRV4tQl5qv2vdpoch9zmrNw3H 4hJPCdOanWvOU31Y5QoQl0j0qowqJFwBL1WN8WEr7
Join price = NOTHING 6452
YOUR FREE MEMBERSHIP! CHECK IT OUT! The Fastest Way To Earn $2000+ EVERY Month Online! Looking for a secure and legitimate online home business? One that WILL bring steady, dependable monthly checks EVERY month and in the shortest amount of time? We can share with you a way to earn $1000's per month on the Internet and receive GUARANTEED monthly checks that will continue to grow. No Hype Here ! - We Can PROVE It! Free To Join - Means Instant Growth! visit http://202.106.184.2/quick120 and fill out the form for more info Can YOU give away FREE memberships? Most Certainly! All day long in fact, AND earn an explosive income in doing so! No pre-launch here! Four year old company with proven system -- that works! Making money on the Internet has never been EASIER! visit http://202.106.184.2/quick120 and fill out the form for more info Join Free and get your own free web site where you can watch your downline grow before your eyes! Check it daily then you decide! See why thousands of people from all over the world are joining - FREE! Lock in Your Position Today by Requesting Your Free Membership, You will receive Your Member ID Number within 48 hours. See for Yourself:) visit http://202.106.184.2/quick120 and fill out the form for more info Please Note: If Your Submission is not completed as above You will NOT receive a Free Membership. You have Nothing to lose and a Lot to Gain. To stop future mailings mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=remove
The Truth 31221
Your Future! Your Choice! In today's society people are looking for that "Get Rich Quick Scheme" and feel they shouldn't even have to work to create any kind of wealth in their lives. You should know by now, this is simply not possible unless you win the lotto! You must be asking yourself "Well, what is possible then? If you have a strong desire and a good work ethic, you can change the situation you are in, and you can create wealth in your life!!! What is your situation?. living from paycheck to paycheck working for someone else who's wealth increases while you can't even pay bills in credit card debt to the point you can not even foresee ever paying them off working so much you have no time to spend with your family not able to put your kids through college time to retire, and the only source of income you have is social security self-employed and it seems your business consumes your life If you are in these situations, or one similar, and you are willing to roll up your sleeves and make a change, then I invite you to read further: This is not MLM! I'm looking for the entrepreneurial minded, GOAL getting leaders who are not only seeking to create wealth in their own lives, but also in the lives of others, and do all this in the comfort of your own home! If you think you fit this criteria, I invite you to make this call. It could change your entire life!!! 1-800-979-8548, ext. 9121 ~~ If this message has reached you in error and you wish to be removed from our mailing list please click this link: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Remove
Oppose the Expansion of Government Secrecy!
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:28:35 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 08-29-01 -- ACLU Action Update: Oppose the Expansion of Government Secrecy! TO: ACLU Action Network FR: Jared Feuer, Internet Organizer DT: August 29, 2001 Last year, with little debate and no public hearings, Congress adopted an intelligence authorization bill that contained a provision to criminalize all leaks of classified information. Although President Clinton vetoed the bill, this year's intelligence authorization bill may include the identical provision. If this provision is allowed to become law, it would essentially eliminate the check on government power that public scrutiny provides! To accomplish the crucial role of exposing government misdeeds, most major news outlets often base stories on classified information. A recent example of such a story is the government bungling of the Wen Ho Lee case. If this provision becomes law however, reporters that rely on leaks of classified information to expose government misconduct could be compelled by subpoena to reveal the source of the leak, or go to prison if they refuse. Current law already protects national security by prohibiting the disclosure of certain classified information that could cause serious harm, such as the disclosure of the names of covert agents. This was deemed enough to protect the national security even during the heyday of the Cold War. Take Action! The government should not be allowed to hide its mistakes, incompetence, political embarrassments, and even in some cases, criminal behavior behind a classified stamp. You can read more and send a FREE FAX from our action alert at: http://www.aclu.org/action/classified107.html ** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **
Increase Your Sales !! dpodo
Increase Sales w/4 Powerful Words !!! We Accept Credit Cards. Just the fact that you accept credit cards adds credibility to your business. Especially if you are a New, Small or Home Based Business Complete E-COMMERCE solutions to accept VISA, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and Checks for your website, online store, traditional retail store or home based business. We specialize in the following: -Multilevel Marketing -Mail Order Phone Order -Home Based -Internet Based -Start-up Businesses -Small Business -Retail Business -And More Good Credit / Bad Credit / No Credit *** NO PROBLEM *** Almost everyone is approved! * FREE SET UP * FREE SET UP * FREE SET UP * For the next 5 days we will waive all Setup Application Fees! (other companies charge $200 to $500 to set up) WE OFFER A TURNKEY E-COMMERCE SOLUTION !! -Bank-approved merchant accounts -Real-time, online payment transactions -Shopping carts -Terminals printers -99% approval rate -Fast 5 - 7 day setup Secure transactions are authorized in true real-time immediately upon submitting orders right on your website. You can process transactions right over the Internet without the need for separate transaction terminal or processing software. Dedicated data line for fast, 3-5 second transactions. No installation required! Quick and easy account setup: 5 - 7 days. Limited Time Offer So Take Advantage NOW!!! _ Full Service E-Commerce Provider who offers complete e-commerce solutions for thousands of businesses. In Business since 1992 FREE CONSULTATION WITH AN INDUSTRY EXPERT, NO OBLIGATION --FREE SET-UP--FREE SET-UP--FREE SET-UP The Time Is Right!!!Email or Call Now!!! Sorry, USA Only - no adult, travel or gaming. * To have a CONSULTANT contact you, please DOUBLE CLICK ON: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=call Include the following information: Name: Phone: Best Time To Call: Hawaii - Pacific - Mountain - Central - Eastern Company Name: Type of Product: Or call our toll free voice mail at: 1-888-588-3719 and leave the above information. A merchant account CONSULTANT will contact you soon. * Here's what our customers say... Testimonial # 1 - I knew having a merchant account would increase my sales, But never thought it would be so great. In addition in being able to take major credit cards, I can also do real time credit card processing on the Internet and receive orders while I am Sleeping. It's awesome! I encourage every serious business owner to get one. Thanks. M.B./MI Testimonial # 2 - Being a home based business owner, no one would approve me, until this came my way. I am more than grateful. Within 10 days I had my merchant account set up. I am more than pleased with the 24 hr. customer service. My business has sky rocketed because I now can accept credit card orders. Oscar/FL To remove your address, DOUBLE CLICK ON: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=remove We will insure that your email address is removed from our database immediately. *Subject must contain the word remove for us to remove you.
The Tim May Question
In another message Tim wrote: On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 12:11 AM, Reese wrote: It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as you sort of noted. Fuck off. I'll take constructive criticism from people who are better writers than I, or at least in the same ballpark. But not from those who have left no lasting impression. I'm not sure if Reese was replying to one of my messages, but this obsession less productive posters have with Tim is peculiar. Looked at as an engineering problem, one tends to look at the underperforming components. Let's say you are running a steel mill, and the average uptime of your blast furnaces is 10%. One is 95%. Nobody would spend their time trying to get the last 5% out of the best furnace. Anybody would look at it and figure out how to get the other furnaces performing. So, some other force is at work. One candidate is the usual tedious resentment that some people feel towards people they see as smarter, more knowledgeable, and more creative than themselves. This sort of behavior is deeply repugnant to me, much more so than occasional political incorrectness. Another candidate is that certain people see Tim as somehow their leader (or something), therefore making him accountable in some way. Given that Tim is not anybody's leader and doesn't seem to want to be, this is less repugnant than it is ridiculous.
Re: secure IRC/messaging successor
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Rich Salz wrote: Gale seems to have a better security story, but Jabber certainly has the momentum and large force behind it. How does SILC http://www.silcnet.org/ fit the bill? -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/;leitl/a __ ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
^Stressed With Debt???^
xu8c Consolidate all your debt into ONE, EASY monthly payment! We will help you: *Eliminate interest charges *Waive late fee charges *Improve your credit rating And best of all, lower your monthly payments by 40%-60% and KEEP MORE CASH IN YOUR POCKET! Take just 1 minute to complete our Credit Card Consolidation Form and one of our experienced professional consultants will contact you! http://www.freewebhostingcentral.com/creditconsolidation There is no obligation and our service is fast and free! All information is kept strictly confidential. Since you have received this message you have either responded to one of our offers in the past or your address has been registered with us. If you wish to be removed please reply: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=remove x1cx *
RE:Marketing Services
WE DELIVER TARGETED UNIQUE SEARCH ENGINE TRAFFIC TO YOUR WEB SITE BOTTOM LINE >>> IF YOUR POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS CAN'T find YOUR WEB SITE in the first 10 to 20 matches ON A SEARCH ENGINE, YOU JUST LOST MONEY! IT'S THAT SIMPLE! Improving search engine TRAFFIC means: MORE HITS MORE BUSINESS MORE SUCCESS The most important advertising dollar spent should be for search engine TRAFFIC! 1. Approximately 95% of all Internet users start with a search engine query. 2. Anyone who comes to your site from a major search engine is 100 times more likely to become a customer because they were specifically looking for your product, goods or services. 3. Search engine traffic gives you substantially more for your advertising dollar than banners or anything else. Moreover having a Banner ad on a web site doesn't mean your Ad was seen or even targeted to your market. Can't Get Your Companies Web Site Indexed by the Search Engines? Unfortunately, this is all too common of a Problem. You're not the only one frustrated about the length of time it takes to be listed, or all the pitfalls involved. It takes anywhere from 2 days to as much as 3 months to be listed on all the search engines. WHEN DO YOU SUBMIT? Engines at any time delay their indexing for maintenance and many other reasons. WE Know exactly how each search engine works, and we know when to submit and what to submit. Search engines are changing Daily and we study them each day. Your competitors ARE @ the mercy of OUR Marketing Departments. Over 6 Years in the search engine wars and We have Masters words like: MP3 - BOOKS - WEB SITE HOSTING - MARKETING - - FREE WEB SITES - CASINO - - CASINO REVIEWS - BALLS - LOGOS - ART - ATTORNEY'S - NEW CAR PARTS - OLD CAR PART - - NETWORK MARKETING - WATER FILTERS - - SCALES - AND THE LIST GOES ON - - If you've submitted your site and come to find no listing, what do you do now? Contact: THE CYBER TRAFFIC TECHNICIANS. You need US in your corner, WE will take CONTROL of the submission cycle of your domain. The cost is 348 US Dollars for 12 months of service. This Price is good for this month only and with this order we give you a free Consultation after 100 days to improve your listings(a $375.00 value). We only offer this to our clients when they order the 12 month search engine submission service. The free Consultation is to make the necessary changes to improve your listing and move you to the top of each Search Engine. When you start our service we do not make any changes to your web site and after 100 days we only make suggestion that WILL improve your search Engine placement. DON'T delay act NOW Today!!! People are looking for your company right now!!! WE WILL PUT YOUR WEB SITE IN FRONT OF THEM!! More Search Engines = More Traffic! WE increase your site's exposure and get your domain more traffic! WE submit your domain to 69 (sixty-nine) search engines! It's simple - WE get you indexed on more search engines and Drive more traffic to your domain! We compiled a list of the major international And domestic search engines! This is your opportunity to increase your domain's traffic, Quickly! WE update (submit) your domain weekly or as needed Plus, WE proved you a monthly report (by request only!) Here's the complete list: AltaVista HotBot InfoSeek/Go Network (Web Results) InfoSeek/Go Network (Proven Picks) AOL Search Direct Hit Excite Fast/All The Web Google Goto.com IWon Lycos MSN NBCi (Formerly Snap) Netscape Open Directory WebCrawler Yahoo Plus Acoon (Germany) Aeiwi (USA) AltaVista (France) AltaVista (Germany) AltaVista (Itlay) AltaVista (Switzerland) Blitz (Germany) Excite (Australia) Excite (France) Excite (Italy) Excite (UK) FindOnce (UK) Free (France) FrequentFinders (USA) GoEureka (Australia) Indibil (Spain) InfoMak (USA) Infoseek (Germany) InfoTiger (USA) Lokace (France) Lycos (Chile) Lycos (Columbia) Lycos (France) Lycos (German) Lycos (Italian) Lycos (Japan) Lycos (Peru) Lycos (Spain) Lycos (Sweden) Lycos (UK) MaxiSearch (Germany) Origo (Norway) QuestFinder (USA) SearchEngine (UK) Sharelook (Italy) ShinySeek (Italy) Speedfind (Germany) SplatSearch (USA) Spray (France) SunSteam (Norway) SuperSnooper (USA) Superva (Italian) Sympatico (Canadian) UK Max (UK) Unearth (New Zealand) Voila (France) Voila (Spain) Walhello (USA) WebSearch (Australia) WebWombat (Australia) Yagua (Paraguay) It's easy!! Just fax or mail the following to: FAX: (707) 220-5223. US MAIL: CyberCO 8190 W Deer Valley Road Suite 104-265 Peoria, AZ 85382 WE WILL CONTACT YOU IN 2 BUSINESS DAYS AND WE DO NO START THE WORK UNTIL WE SPEAK WITH YOU!! -- Order Form -- PAYMENT TYPES: CHECK - CREDIT CARD - MONEY ORDER All orders must be completely filled out! Company Name: Address: State: City:
SIGINT Law in the US
Lawrence Sloan writes in the Duke Law Journal http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+1467 - The various allegations surrounding ECHELON can be roughly grouped into two categories. The first set of allegations, coming primarily from Europe, concerns the use of the ECHELON system to conduct economic espionage on behalf of American companies. The second set of allegations involves the illegal use of ECHELON to collect intelligence about American citizens. This second set of allegations will be the focus of this Note. In a society such as ours, which considers privacy and freedom from intrusive government to be fundamental values, the prospect of the American government spying on its citizens is extremely troubling. These allegations raise questions about the sufficiency of the legal restrictions placed on the collection and use of signals intelligence. The use of national intelligence assets to conduct industrial espionage for the benefit of American companies over their foreign competitors is controversial, but that issue turns primarily upon matters of policy rather than law. This Note will focus on the legal restrictions on signals intelligence (SIGINT) activities and, thus, will set aside the primarily policy-driven question of using national intelligence assets to conduct economic espionage. -
Fellow PPL associate
Hi: I noticed your well done ad in classifieds. As a PPL associate I'd like to introduce myself and maybe compare notes. If you'd like to do so please email me. Meanwhile check out my site that I and many other associates are using to gain a large volume of names due to the SEM system and popup windows that follow the visitor as he navigates the normal PPL site. Here's some URLs to check outÂ… Home page w/popup http://www.free-law-central.com Associate recruiting page http://www.free-law-central.com/associate_lead.htm Focus advertising page http://www.free-law-central.com/free_will.htm To your success J.R. Orsoni 954-566-5175 P.S. If you ever want to chat live go to: http://www.free-law-central.com/associate_talk.htm 1/9/01
Re: Anonymous Posting
Tim May wrote: I don't recall the context, but I don't have any such friends or even acquaintances. Even those I know on the Far Right don't want to kill _all_ Jews, just the pesky freedom-stealing ones, and the millions who form the Zionist Occupation Government in the Zionist Entity of ZOG-Occupied Palestine. This was the remark I had in mind: Tim May wrote on August 16, 2001: (I know folks who think Judaism is in fact far worse, and who hope and pray for the day when 4 million Jews in Occupied Palestine are rounded up and liquidated. I take no position on this... I see now that all Jews mischaracterized your statement. My apologies. Add nerve gases and biological agents to the mix over the next several years. Cuts both ways, of course. If the past is any guide, mostly the innocent would die. And I won't shed a tear, as those who left New York and Oslo and Berlin and Phoenix to go to some tiny patch of land which they claim YHWH the Terrible granted to the sons of a desert minor potentate--this all revealed in a hash dream by an old man, allegedly--well, they were fools in 1948 to kick Arabs off of their farms and out of their homes. The Jews will suffer mightily. Which might be all they really want, oy vey! I've known very few Jewish people who believe God gave them Israel, but it clearly has something to do with why that particular patch of land was chosen. Maybe it's the Schelling point of Zionism. The area is symbolically loaded for Jewish people, but the downside is that it's important to other people as well. Most Israelis that I've known see the religiously based Zionists as crazies, especially the ones from the U.S. Saying that Israelis are a certain way because there are people in Israel with certain views is as reasonable as saying that Jim Bell is a good guide to the cypherpunks. The exact nature of Zionism seems hard to pin down, sort of like defining a cypherpunk. It is clear that many Zionists are not religious. And I know many people who support, as I do of course, the right of Aryan Nation(s) to do their thing without lawsuits from offended Jews and liberals. Last I heard, Aryan Nation(s) was not building any gas chambers. Shutting down the organization due to, for example, the murder of Allan Berg in Denver makes no more moral or legal sense than shutting down the Catholics because some Catholics have bombed abortion clinics. Agreed. Many prominent Catholics have publicly declared that abortion is murder. Applying the same level of integrity as has been applied in criminal trials of technical people, this could be seen as incitement. What is insidious about charging people with organizational involvement is that it bypasses the criminal justice system. The organization itself doesn't stand trial. At the same time the members are not charged with any specfic crime. Thus, the trial can consist of little more than innuendo and the defendant stands a good chance of conviction. It is very close to simple political repression. The Jews lacked their equivalent of a Reformation, the Lutheran and Calvinist revolution in thinking which laid the groundwork for the modern age. And instead of moving on, embracing the future, many of them retreated to a desert land they thought of as their historic homeland, never mind that more Polish blood flowed through the veins of Jews born in Krakow than blood from their ancestors who fled or otherwise left Palestine 1500 or more years ago. But aren't you the one bringing up the racial purity theory here? I've never known a Jewish person, and I've known many, who spent any time worrying about the genetic purity of their Jewish descent. Presumably they exist somewhere, but the breed is rare. Some Jewish people do seem to have long discussions about What is a Jew (sic)?, but they do not seem to be genetically driven. I am having a little difficulty understanding what you mean by embracing the future. This strikes me as a straw man, but perhaps I'm not getting your point. The Jewish community, even the Jewish religious community, does not seem to have had any problem accepting scientific discoveries, which one could describe as embracing the future. Many Christians, Protestant and otherwise, have had serious problems in this department. For example, the theory of evolution was accepted without a fuss. Even in Jewish religious schools, the theory of evolution is taught. I think the idea behind going to Palestine and founding Israel was to find a way to not be murdered any more. After over 1000 years of abuse ending with 2/3 of the group being killed, it doesn't seem unreasonable that many of the survivors would conclude that it was unsafe to live among Europeans. My guess is that they figured they could just sort of push the Arabs aside and after a bit of fuss, everybody would get used to the idea and they'd have a country where they would have full political rights and even own land without fears
*Exclusive Offer* ~Become a 24-7 Master Recruiter!~
Become a 24-7 Master Recruiter! Hello, Discover the secret weapon of the MLM heavy hitters that will deliver an instant electrifying cash flow while prospecting! Free report reveals it all. Limited edition so act now! Visit here and I will send it out to you right away. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=FREE_REPORT Sincerely, sam P.S I'll show you a secret on how to make money on your Pre Qualified Leads as well! That's called: Self-Liquidating-Lead-Generation! So in other words you gonna make money in the Front End as well... .just like the Pro's in MLM do! Earn WHILE recruiting... === REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: You may automatically remove yourself from any future mailings by clicking here. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=REMOVE
Re: Tim's Tips on Avoiding Prosecution
On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 06:14 PM, David Honig wrote: At 10:41 AM 8/31/01 -0700, Tim May wrote: 5. At physical Cypherpunks meetings, by all means talk about politics, uses of technology, even anarchic things. But avoid being drawn into debates about what to do to specific politicians, judges, etc.. (Attendees at Bay Area meetings will know that for 9 years now we have had occasional heated discussions of these things, but we have avoided the kind of people's tribunal crap that helped get Bell into trouble.) Maybe *that's* the reason for holding meatings at the SFPD. To keep everyone from naming future corpses. I certainly would never attend a Cypherpunks meeting held at a police training facility! A bizarre development in the history of Cypherpunks, that's for sure. However, a leader of Aryan Nation, for example, calling for his followers to kill Jews might cross the line (incitement). Their have been a few civil actions where the organization or its leaders were held liable for damages caused by followers who were incited to _specific_ actions. So kill David Berg might be incitement? Hmm, he was a public figure. But kill all Jews could easily be justified on religious grounds -fatwas are protected speech. Specificity matters. If someone with some ability to influence urges his followers to Kill Jews, and some of them begin to, expect an incitement (and perhaps conspiracy) charge to stick against the speaker. If someone mere opines that Jews should be killled, protected speech. After about 10 minutes of staring me down, they told me to walk to the closest point that was off campus and not to return. I asked about my car. If you are seen on campus, you will be arrested. You can get your car tomorrow. (Great, since I lived 60 miles away.) A fuck you would have been appropriate, but not in your rational self-interest. I just said very little. When they asked me for ID, I said nothing. When they asked me for my name, I said nothing. When they said they wanted to search my bag, I said No. She said that students and faculty had all been dealing with the effects of Chelsea's arrival as a student and that the law school would be quite happy to handle my case if the SS or Stanford Sheriff's Dept. nabbed me. Sweet. Didn't happen, though. No arrest. Also no return gigs at her class...for whatever reason. If I recall the years right, it was in '95 that I first spoke, then in '97 when the incident occurred. We've had no contact since. Maybe I wasn't the speaker she wanted, maybe she'd heard enough from me, maybe my run-in with the Securitat was enough for her. (And Larry Lessig is now at Stanford, so maybe he's taken over teaching the cyberlaw class.) --TIm May
Re: CDR: China Stories - US Busting Crypto Exports, Fighting Censorship by Corrupting Safeweb
Bill Stewart wrote: The NYT and USA Today both have articles about the Customs busting two US Chinese guys for exporting US military crypto gear. It's the KIV-7HS, made by our old buddies at Mykotronx (who made Clipper.) The NYT said the Feds were worried that if the Chinese reverse engineered it, they'd be able to crack lots of our crypto secrets. Normally I'd say that if that's the case, it's really shoddy crypto - but one of the interesting things Bamford mentions in Body of Secrets is that one of the US spies, I think Hansen or Walker, had been feeding crypto keys to the Russians, so the crypto gear they got from the Pueblo made it possible for them to crack years of messages; perhaps they're worried about the same thing here. Eugene Hsu of Blue Springs, MO and David Yang of Temple City CA face a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail and $1M fine. Meanwhile, the NYT had a front-page story that one of the US propaganda agencies is proposing to help fight censorship in China by promoting Safeweb, which is partly funded by In-Q-It, the CIA venture fund. They've apparently got about 100 servers, and the Triangle Boy feature makes it possible for them to keep changing IP addresses to make blocking harder. I assume if there are also Chinese Spies using it, the CIA will be able to get the operators to rat out their identities... But the main use will be to feed lots of news into China. I'd already mistrusted Safeweb - not their honesty, but their technology, since they require you to enable Javascript to use their tools. Yes, it makes it easy to write cool and powerful tools, but even if _their_ Javascript is perfectly secure, the fact that you need to have it turned on leaves you vulnerable whenever you read other web pages. (Also, their Javascript is slightly buggy; I've had trouble with window size and positioning issues.) A third China Card in the news is the GAO's announcement that they suspect that Code Red originated at a university in Guangdong. Keith Rhodes, GAO's chief technologist, gave written testimony to the House Government Reform subcommittee, but didn't return US Today's calls. Of course, the real blame belongs to Microsoft - and US Today, who are getting surprisingly technical this week, has a couple of articles about the recent Hotmail/Passport hacks, in which security consultant and former Yahoo security advisor Jeremiah Grossman, who had recently cracked Hotmail in three lines of code, now has it down to one line... This is another cross-site scripting attack. Pretty short-sighted if CRII is a Chinese govt. intel operation. Looking through my logs I see scans from rooted boxes in Guangdong. As well as hundreds of locations all around the world. A number of Middle Eastern locations, for instance. Unless they're all honeypots, they're giving as much as they're getting. If this supposition is true, which I doubt. Could have been anybody, and no particular reason to single out China over any other potential culprit. Nope, no telling who, and more importantly, no point worrying about it, since everybody and his brother that's wont is exploiting it. Just chalk it up to entropy and deal with it. I'm wondering if that Mykotronx box couldn't have done more guod for U.S. intel if it *had* gone to China, but I'm not familiar enough with it to know. Unless the recipient was planning to set up a counterfeit assembly line or something. In which case I wouldn't be too happy if I were Mykotronx. Since Mykotronx is getting press, I will put in a word for Bytex, which also makes encrypting ATM firewalls and such. You can get a way-cool Leo Marks WWII Silk Code mousepad from their website, http://www.bytex.com, in exchange for your sekrit personal info. jbdigriz
*Exclusive Offer* ~Become a 24-7 Master Recruiter!~
Become a 24-7 Master Recruiter! Hello, Discover the secret weapon of the MLM heavy hitters that will deliver an instant electrifying cash flow while prospecting! Free report reveals it all. Limited edition so act now! Visit here and I will send it out to you right away. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=FREE_REPORT Sincerely, sam P.S I'll show you a secret on how to make money on your Pre Qualified Leads as well! That's called: Self-Liquidating-Lead-Generation! So in other words you gonna make money in the Front End as well... .just like the Pro's in MLM do! Earn WHILE recruiting... === REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: You may automatically remove yourself from any future mailings by clicking here. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=REMOVE
Re: News: 'U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship'
Greg wrote: At 05:31 PM 8/31/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: Sure. But to what extent can you collaborate without a)approaching full- blown collusion or b) getting taken for a ride in spite of your best efforts? When you talk about collaborating and ZKS selling beta software to the NSA, are you saying you've got information that ZKS gave the NSA access to more information than the general public got, and/or that the NSA got their access or information meaningfully earlier than the general public? If that's the case, that's interesting, but that's too serious a claim to let pass by as an unstated implication. Actually, it would be far more more informative to get them to explain exactly what happened instead of relying on third-party empty hearsay and hot air from me, since honestly that's all I've got. But I'm sure there are a lot of reasons--some of them contractural--you'll never hear the whole story. Especially given that you'll never get anything more than loose talk from the other side. My personal opinion is that collusion or not, they got taken for a ride. And if it's not worth much, so be it. ~Faustine.
Re: News: U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship
On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 01:27 PM, Faustine wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: Tim wrote: But, as with Kirchoff's point, the attacker is going to get the design eventually. If getting the design eventually were good enough, why the keen interest in putting in a large order for the beta? There's a reason. Perhaps the NSA wanted to use the product without making illegal copies? Your earlier point (that they wished to reverse-engineer the product) is in fact undermined by this fact that they bought N copies. Unless you believe reverse engineering is only useful for making pirated copies, there's no reason to assume any sort of contradiction at all. As if the NSA would use anything from the private sector they didn't know inside out. Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for brute-force cryptanalyis, I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. it appears you also believe the myth about the mighty NSA knowing more than the private sector. You _really_ need to get an education on these matters. Are you actually claiming NSA implements COTS technology completely straight off-the-shelf? And what do any of these you poopy head whippersnapper comments have to do with the fact that you found a contradiction where there was none? Boss Tom Turkey in full strut. ~Faustine.
Re: News: U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship
Tim Wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for brute-force cryptanalyis, I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. You did indeed. Several times you alluded to what big and powerful computers the NSA must have, the better to blow our house down. When it was pointed out to you the nature of brute-forcing a big key, and how useless computers are, you seemed not to get the point. Oh, well that might have a little something to do with the fact that I never made the point that brute-forcing keys was the way big and powerful NSA computers are going to blow our house down, mightn't it. The fact that brute-forcing keys was the only thing you could think of when you saw my phrase interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications and then chose to fixate on proving what a damn poopy head whippersnapper I am instead of deigning to bother over what methods I meant to refer to is indicative of your own limitations, not mine. ~Faustine.
RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
Jim wrote: On 31 Aug 2001, at 15:21, Faustine wrote: Bah, it's dangerous to be so sure. And all the fevered talk about Aimee being a fed is hysterical. Feds tend to stick out in the same way she does. That does not prove she is a fed of course, it is not even particularly good evidence that she is a fed, but there are feds on this list. All I'm saying is that if the feds are doing their job well, they won't stick out at all. Smells like a witch hunt. Haven't you ever gone to a usenet group and baited people just for the hell of it because you were bored? She does not know enough about us to bait us correctly -- she also issues appeasing win-their-confidence stuff, and it is the wrong stuff. That incompetent buttering up very fed like behavior. Someone who does not know enough to issue the right win-their-confidence stuff usually does not care enough to issue win-their-confidence stuff. Of course it could be she is merely incompetently trying to douse the flames she has incompetently raised. Anyone who comes here and regularly expresses unpopular opinions in a provocative way is generally--almost by definition--not liked. And if you don't like someone, you tend to interpret anything they do in the light of your not liking them. I can't help but think that since the topics being discussed here are so sensitive, everyone gets a little twitchy and runs the risk of going overboard in the way they perceive dissenters who are at odds with the prevailing wisdom. Actually, I think the group would be better off if more people were around to goad everyone into clarifying their thoughts and articulating them succinctly and persuasively. Couldn't hurt. Believe it or not, Choate is doing everyone a favor. And even if a whole gang of feds were actively trolling the group, what difference would it make as long as everyone has enough sense to see through it and keep their heads on straight? In a sick and perverse sense, you might call it Darwinian justice. Also, the but they're wasting our time angle is easily circumvented by having the self-discipline not to write knee-jerk replies to obvious nonsense. Some people never learn... The distinctive characteristic of an undercover fed is that they are pretending to be someone they are not, and doing it badly, confused about what their role is, and uninformed of how real people in that role act -- for example her recent flame againt ZKS. Real people who are really concerned about the security of ZKS, and really hate and fear the NSA, do not talk like that. I must have missed it. Unless you think I'm one of her nyms, you might noticed I've had some unkind words for ZKS myself. Becuase as much as I fear the NSA, I fear gullibility and stupidity among the well-intentioned even more. And if saying so makes for a more entertaining debate, well, so much the better. Now quite possibly she is just upset by getting continually flamed, and is just putting on a rather bad act to persuade us she is on our side. But putting on a rather bad act is also something feds do. Incompetent acting is does not mean one is a fed, but if one is a fed, it means one acts incompetently. True, but if she really is incompetent, she's hardly a threat, is she. The only feds to really worry about are the competent ones. ~Faustine.
Moral Crypto
On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 01:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: On 31 Aug 2001, at 12:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31 Aug 2001, at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: 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. Yes and no. The users aren't all that anonymous, or they wouldn't need anonymous technologies, would they? The remailer network sees where this message originates. If you use Zero Knowledge software, their network knows exactly who is using it at any time. If a digital cash bank came into existence, payments transferred into the digital system from outside would largely be from identified sources. What can I say? You clearly don't understand: -- how remailer _networks_ work (Hint: nested encryption...all the first remailer sees when he opens a message is an encrypted message he can't read and instructions on which remailer to send it to next, and so on. Only if most/all remailers collaborate can the route be followed by them.) -- how Freedom works (Hint: They say that even they cannot know who is using it, except in terms of network usage. Which with cover traffic, forwarding of other traffic, dummy messages, etc., means the fact that Alice was using the network during a period of time does not mean they know which exit messages are hers.) -- blinding. (Hint: That Alice deposits money into a digital bank, and is identified by the bank, does not mean the bank knows who received digital money from Alice, because Alice unblinds the note before spending it--or redeeming it.) The real issue is the clause above about market and sell. This was the original point raised by Tim May: what markets do we select? You have several times attempted to corral me into your which markets are moral, which do we focus on? point. I only cited several obvious examples (discussed _many_ times here, e.g., the distribution of birth control info in Islamic countries, e.g., dissidents in a corrupt regime (ZOG), etc.) because some of the newcomers seem so unimaginative and ill-informed that they were whining about how untraceability only helps criminals, perverts, and terrrorists. This does _not_ mean I have issued any kind of call for people to work on moral uses, and I wish you would stop using my name in support of your moral crusade. One man's supplier of the herb is another man's drug dealer. One man's erotica creator is another man's pervert. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. These are all obvious points discussed many hundreds of times on this list. His whiteboard exercise teaches that you need to identify, select and target particular markets which make sense. And if you care about the world you are creating, that's where the moral issue comes in. It means the markets are further out from the dollar ghetto than many people think. And the further out from the origin (0,0), the more heated the debate becomes about terrorists, perverts, tax evaders, and so on. 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. Nonsense. Most participants in this forum DO share common philosophical goals: the preservation and enhancement of individual freedom via technological means. This is our common heritage. People make moral judgements every single day on this list based on exactly this framework. And it is this moral view which tells us that bin Laden and his terrorist groups are not the market which we should target in order to advance these goals. How about McVeigh? How about The Real IRA? How about John Brown? How about Patrick Henry/ How about Cuban exiles? (By the way, everyone should know about the time an anti-Castro group blew up a Cuban airliner. Terrorists, freedom fighters, or just a bunch who wants to be in control?) I spoke of dissident-grade untraceability, identical to pedophile-grade untraceability. Not to support either dissdents or pedophiles, but to provide a handle on just how good this untraceability must be so as to protect dissidents from arrest and execution and pedophiles from arrest and imprisonment (or execution in Islamic regimes). Surely not. Morality plays a part in everything we do. We have goals in common.
The History Place - Triumph of Hitler
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-fuehrer.htm -- -- 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 --'-
Using supercomputers to break interesting ciphers
On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 01:53 PM, Faustine wrote: Tim Wrote: On Friday, August 31, 2001, at 11:43 AM, Faustine wrote: Consistent with your misconception about big computers being useful for brute-force cryptanalyis, I never said that and you know it. Nice troll, though. You did indeed. Several times you alluded to what big and powerful computers the NSA must have, the better to blow our house down. When it was pointed out to you the nature of brute-forcing a big key, and how useless computers are, you seemed not to get the point. Oh, well that might have a little something to do with the fact that I never made the point that brute-forcing keys was the way big and powerful NSA computers are going to blow our house down, mightn't it. The fact that brute-forcing keys was the only thing you could think of when you saw my phrase interesting possibilities for cryptographic applications and then chose to fixate on proving what a damn poopy head whippersnapper I am instead of deigning to bother over what methods I meant to refer to is indicative of your own limitations, not mine. You are now backpedaling furiously away from your common to newbies claim that fast computers might be used to break ciphers. Here's a chunk of dialog from an August 8 post of yours: (comments after are from Tim) Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher talk about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last Thursday. This, and similar comments you made about the Sandia and IBM supercomputers, clearly imply you think one of the uses of these supercomputers is to try to break what I called Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers. Many who are exposed to crypto to the first time, and who haven't thought about the issue of factoring large numbers, simply assume that a worthwhile goal is to try (Since when did people stop trying?) to break such ciphers with faster computers. (To be sure, there are interesting projects on faster factoring methods, better quadratic sieves, searches for Mersenne primes, all that good number theory stuff. Some of it is even being done at Sandia. But this is a far cry from the common belief that Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers may fall to attacks with mere supercomputers. Do the math on what a trillion such Sandia computers could do if they ran for a billion years...then realize there are keys already in use today which cannot be attacked by brute-force (or probably any other direct means) with all of the computer power that the universe could ever support. Mind-boggling, but I realized this via some calculations just after starting to look closely at RSA.) You are now backpedalling, claiming you never meant this. Similar to the way you claimed if someone else is convinced it's interesting enough to be willing to food the power bill (as I had anticipated would be the case), well AFTER I posted an article pointing out that the power bill alone for running older Pentiums and G3s would pay for faster new CPUs to make the old DIY machines a waste of time. Fact is, you HADN'T anticipated this...you saw my calculations of watts and MIPS and only _then_ did you retroactively anticipate that power concerns make such arrays of old machines a lose. Check the archives. When some adds a gratuitous As I had anticipated would be the case under these circumstance we know we are in the presence of a faker. --Tim May
Re: Using supercomputers to break interesting ciphers
Faustine wrote: Tim wrote: (snip) You are now backpedaling furiously away from your common to newbies claim that fast computers might be used to break ciphers. Here's a chunk of dialog from an August 8 post of yours: (comments after are from Tim) Except when was the last time you heard of a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher being broken with _any_ amount of computer crunching? Since when did people stop trying? The last time I heard a researcher talk about trying to break a Cypherpunks-interesting cipher was last Thursday. This, and similar comments you made about the Sandia and IBM supercomputers, clearly imply you think one of the uses of these supercomputers is to try to break what I called Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers. If I had known that to you computer crunching is synonymous with brute forcing large keys I certainly would have expressed myself differently. Many who are exposed to crypto to the first time, and who haven't thought about the issue of factoring large numbers, simply assume that a worthwhile goal is to try (Since when did people stop trying?) to break such ciphers with faster computers. (To be sure, there are interesting projects on faster factoring methods, better quadratic sieves, searches for Mersenne primes, all that good number theory stuff. Some of it is even being done at Sandia. But this is a far cry from the common belief that Cypherpunks-interesting ciphers may fall to attacks with mere supercomputers. Do the math on what a trillion such Sandia computers could do if they ran for a billion years...then realize there are keys already in use today which cannot be attacked by brute-force (or probably any other direct means) with all of the computer power that the universe could ever support. Mind-boggling, but I realized this via some calculations just after starting to look closely at RSA.) You are now backpedalling, claiming you never meant this. Backpedalling has nothing to do with it. trying to break Cypehrpunks- interesting ciphers does not equal using supercomputers to brute-force large keys. Interesting cryptograhic applications does not equal brute- forcing large keys. Why is this so difficult. Similar to the way you claimed if someone else is convinced it's interesting enough to be willing to foot the power bill (as I had anticipated would be the case), well AFTER I posted an article pointing out that the power bill alone for running older Pentiums and G3s would pay for faster new CPUs to make the old DIY machines a waste of time. Fact is, you HADN'T anticipated this...you saw my calculations of watts and MIPS and only _then_ did you retroactively anticipate that power concerns make such arrays of old machines a lose. Check the archives. The as I had anticipated would be the case refers to being allowed to build it in someone else's facility, on their dime. I never said the first thing about having done any of the calculations mentioned in your post. It's their facility, I anticipate they find it interesting enough to let me build it there, they foot the power bill. What's so tricky about that. In fact, I meant for the passage to serve as a sort of explanation of the circumstances in which power costs weren't enough of a central issue for me to have considered them. The end of the sentence you omitted, where's the downside? might make this clearer. Obviously, not clear enough. When some adds a gratuitous As I had anticipated would be the case under these circumstances we know we are in the presence of a faker. You interpreted it as referring to what you thought it ought to in order to bolster whatever view you want to have of me. Nothing new. ~Faustine.
Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Having read Tim's reply already, I'll confine myself to a point he didn't address. On 1 Sep 2001, at 22:30, Nomen Nescio wrote: It's true that this does not directly impact the design. But we can't ignore the question, is this a market we want to pursue. For example, there are any number of papers on key escrow systems, or fair electronic cash (where only the government can trace it). Legitimate businesses might well be willing to use such systems. So there is profit to be made, all the more profit since the government is less likely to hassle you. Note, however, that this IS a question of design, not merely one of marketing. The system doesn't know terrorists from freedom fighters. The system doesn't know pornographers from Falun Gongers. A system does (or at least could) know clients who want to send megabytes of data from ones who only want top send a few bits. It does know clients who insist on real-time or near real-time transmission from ones who would accept substantial transmission delay times. It knows clients who insist their system be free and trivial to use from those willing to spend a fair amount and go to a certain degree of effort to make damn sure they're doing things right. It knows the difference between broadcasting and person-to-person communication. And it knows whether clients are willing to accept the idea that some trusted third party could compromise their identity, or whether they trust no one. Would you say that discussions of such technologies would and should be encouraged on the cypherpunks list? Certainly they should be discussed, if only to point out what's wrong with them, or speculate how the escrow mechanism might be defeated or compromised. That it doesn't matter whether this helps us in or long-term goal or not? Long-term consequences are notoriously hard to predict. For example, it's quite possible somebody who develops and implements a digital cash system with some sort of key escrow mechanism might be doing the world a big favor, since cloning it and cutting out the escrow part might be a lot easier than developing a similar system from scratch. Or maybe not, as I said, hard to say. Surely not. Morality plays a part in everything we do. We have goals in common. We should structure our efforts so that they are in accordance with our highest goals. Having principles is nothing to be ashamed of. We all have them, and we should be proud of that. OK. Freedom=good. Tyranny=bad. Now that we've agreed on moral principles, time to move on. George
cryptosocialismo
cryptoanarchy aka cryptocapitalism seems to be in crisis.Should the hardcore libertarian individualist tap into a new source of fire?During the spanish civil war/revolution,in anarchist controlled areas,individuals were free to cultivate individual lots and some did.After a while most drifted to the collectives.The prospects for any revolution,let alone a libertarian socialist one seem bleak...yet,with the gulags gulping more victims everyday and a looming runaway greenhouse effect the day of the lone wolf cryptowarrior may be coming to an end.The future might be real grass roots workers control or 'tears of blood'You dont make revolutions by halves. mattd.
Re: News: 'U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship'
At 03:19 PM 9/1/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: When you talk about collaborating and ZKS selling beta software to the NSA, are you saying you've got information that ZKS gave the NSA access to more information than the general public got, and/or that the NSA got their access or information meaningfully earlier than the general public? Actually, it would be far more more informative to get them to explain exactly what happened instead of relying on third-party empty hearsay and hot air from me, since honestly that's all I've got. But I'm sure there are a lot of reasons--some of them contractural--you'll never hear the whole story. Especially given that you'll never get anything more than loose talk from the other side. Well, if all you've got is hearsay and hot air, then I think it's unfair to tag them with words like collaborator or suggest that they're not trustworthy - those are pretty serious allegations to make. I'm aware of examples of cryptosystems and companies which were compromised by intelligence agencies - and also aware of baseless FUD and conspiracy theories spun against uncompromised software unfairly. -- Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have found and closed the thing you watch us with. -- New Delhi street kids
Re: Moral Crypto
Tim May wrote: On Saturday, September 1, 2001, at 01:30 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: Yes and no. The users aren't all that anonymous, or they wouldn't need anonymous technologies, would they? The remailer network sees where this message originates. If you use Zero Knowledge software, their network knows exactly who is using it at any time. If a digital cash bank came into existence, payments transferred into the digital system from outside would largely be from identified sources. What can I say? You clearly don't understand: -- how remailer _networks_ work (Hint: nested encryption...all the first remailer sees when he opens a message is an encrypted message he can't read and instructions on which remailer to send it to next, and so on. Only if most/all remailers collaborate can the route be followed by them.) The fact that a given person is using the remailer network is not a secret. At least one remailer finds out every time he sends a message. The point is, the entry from the non-anonymous to the anonymous world is a vulnerability. -- how Freedom works (Hint: They say that even they cannot know who is using it, except in terms of network usage. Which with cover traffic, forwarding of other traffic, dummy messages, etc., means the fact that Alice was using the network during a period of time does not mean they know which exit messages are hers.) You are not stating their claims accurately. ZKS does indeed have information about who is using it at any given time, if they operate any of the servers. Or at least the server operators can tell. Each user sets up a route through a chain of servers, and any given server knows exactly who is using it as the initial connection into the network. Again, the entry from non-anonymous into anonymous networks is visible. -- blinding. (Hint: That Alice deposits money into a digital bank, and is identified by the bank, does not mean the bank knows who received digital money from Alice, because Alice unblinds the note before spending it--or redeeming it.) No, but the fact that Alice transfered a certain amount of funds into the anonymous bank is visible to at least some observers. Once again, the point is that as you enter the anonymous world your entry is visible. Compare this with the original claim: 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. These examples illustrate the falsehood of this claim. Much more is learned about the customers as they enter the anonymous system. Nonsense. Most participants in this forum DO share common philosophical goals: the preservation and enhancement of individual freedom via technological means. This is our common heritage. People make moral judgements every single day on this list based on exactly this framework. And it is this moral view which tells us that bin Laden and his terrorist groups are not the market which we should target in order to advance these goals. How about McVeigh? How about The Real IRA? How about John Brown? How about Patrick Henry/ How about Cuban exiles? (By the way, everyone should know about the time an anti-Castro group blew up a Cuban airliner. Terrorists, freedom fighters, or just a bunch who wants to be in control?) Not everyone will agree with every specific case. But given our common philosophical heritage, list members can come to agreement with regard to most examples. The test is simple, whether these individuals advance the causes we support. As long as you're listing examples, what do you think about Osama bin Laden? Would you support efforts to market crypto technology to Islamic religious extremists? The great thing about bin Laden as an example is that we can see exactly what the consequences will be when he succeeds. With McVeigh, nobody knows for sure. But chances are it would be much the same if the militias achieved their goals: installation of a religious state. Supporting these people means helping bring about another Afghanistan, maybe right here at home next time. Surely not. Morality plays a part in everything we do. We have goals in common. We should structure our efforts so that they are in accordance with our highest goals. Having principles is nothing to be ashamed of. We all have them, and we should be proud of that. An additional point: if you were truly unconcerned with moral issues, you would have no objection to seeing discussion here about how we can use computer technology to promote government power and control. From your words, I doubt you support the same goals I support. We'll see. If you support increasing government power, then you are correct. 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No. 2] 092AA1EC9926D468F8964B8EF537DDC1782A1281 92F14832E4C534B35B8E9A1C10A5346E1E472C95 -12FF 12FF
Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story!
Today, Snowhite was turning 18. The 7 Dwarfs always where very educated and polite with Snowhite. When they go out work at mornign, they promissed a *huge* surprise. Snowhite was anxious. Suddlently, the door open, and the Seven Dwarfs enter... attachment: dwarf4you.exe
Re: Moral Crypto
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Nomen Nescio wrote: Again, the entry from non-anonymous into anonymous networks is visible. Which is where distributed systems like Plan 9 come into play. By being completely distributed and (at least in theory) encrypted at the network layer the 'vulnerability' becomes connecting to the network. Of sourse this still leaves the question of keys and their management as a 'entry' vulnerability. -- 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 --'-
May I have your permission?
Dear Achiever, Are you looking for your first Internet business...or your last? If it's your first, I bet you'd like it to be your last! Your last would be the one that allows you to achieve your full time income (documented $7,000/month) on a part time basis, is stable, will be there for your heirs, and give you the lifestyle you dream of. May I have your permission to send your FREE information of an exciting online business which is growing at a very rapid rate? You have: - NO retailing (most people HATE selling) - NO delivering or handling products - NO big up-front investment (less than a $50 startup fee) - and NO risk (120 days money back guarantee) To receive your FREE information about this legitimate, automated home business that has a proven track record, click below and your information is on it's way! mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Show_Me AOL members: A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Show_Me;[Click_Here]/A Thank you and have a great day! Best Regards, Sheldon
