Bill Stewart wrote:
At 01:26 PM 1/24/01 +0100, Tom wrote:
Alan Olsen wrote:
You could do a collectable card game based on the patent mess, but the
idea of a collectable card game has already been patented. (Now owned by
Hasbro now that they bought Wizards of the Cost.)
wouldn't
Ken Brown wrote:
so (the author claims) bypass Echelon. Hmmm. Whoever put the site up
doesn't seem to have a clear distinction between cryptography,
stenography obfuscation. Does everyone have to reinvent the wheel
every time? Are we going to go through it all *again* with mobile phone
trust your own eyes, then visiting both Tim and me can assure you
that there are two DIFFERENT entities claiming to be Tim and Tom. you
can then verify whether they really are what they claim, the method of
verification again depending on what instances you trust. for example,
if you trust the german
a friend of mine was an officer in the german army until very recently
(he decided to get a real job :) ) - give me 24 hours and I'll tell you
exactly what the past and current standard issue weapons are and what
kind of ammo they fire.
current weapon (after the G3) is the G36, obviously an
"Phillip H. Zakas" wrote:
I do agree with you that in general most people are concerned with their own
day-to-day lives and cannot or don't care to understand how decisions made
in Europe or in Washington, DC regarding the internet do, or could, affect
themselves or those they know.
right.
Tim May wrote:
And as relates to Choate's "I was right" point, repeated again
recently, the G3 in use by the German army was most definitely a 7.62
mm, i.e., a .308 Winchester. It was _not_ the 5.56 mm variant, at
least not for wide use. (I say this because quibblers like Choate
like to find
"Roy M. Silvernail" wrote:
A quote from http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,20985,00.html:
" Criminal organizations appear to be using the proceeds of
IP-infringing products to facilitate a variety of enterprises,
including guns, drugs, pornography and even
Brian Lane wrote:
The only way they can make this even begin to work in the marketplace
is
to force manufacturers to stop producing uncontrollable drives. I
wouldn't
be suprised if there was an amendment to enact this waiting to attach
itself
to an obscure bill in Congress.
Or maybe
Bill Stewart wrote:
Music Hoarders have a somewhat harder problem, in that they
want to copy-protect information while providing near-identical
copies to large numbers of people, while you're more likely
to want to provide your personal transaction information or
private messages only to a
Brian Lane wrote:
Maybe I'm being dense today, but I don't see how this is going to
work. So
they have a key on your drive, they encrypt the data using this key, but
at
some point the data has to be decrypted and used, which means that it
can be
intercepted.
The article isn't too
"Templeton, Stuart" wrote:
probably behind the times, didn't see this spark up yet, but the quote below
caught my attention...
How serious would you guys suggest this "threat" to be? any information
regarding other patents that could turn up like this in a
more SERIOUS fashion?
two
John Young wrote:
Is any of this Douglas stuff true? We don't know.
at least one of his claims is false: his books are NOT banned in
germany. on the contrary, there's even a german translation:
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3806111049/qid%3D977139380/302-3127721-2116047
Tim May wrote:
Lighten up. It was a joke.
(I even provided a hint, in the "honored in some cultures.")
sorry, I've been working overtime on some stuff here lately, and I was
too tired to get it. also, I'm tired of the nitpicking some people here
exhibit as if there were nothing more
Me wrote:
that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the
"masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it
- they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet
privacy,
where we are unwilling to give in to even more privacy being
taken away, but we CAN
if i were
"Trei, Peter" wrote:
rounding that up, I'd guess that if we were religious about our privacy,
things may be different (possibly just more ugly, but who knows).
Be careful about making sweeping generalizations about Islamic cultures;
they vary almost as much as Christian and Jewish ones.
"R. A. Hettinga" wrote:
...an argument for bearer credentials if there ever was one...
there's also a couple other things in there that I find highly
questionable. the worst is right at the end:
"We have forwarded it to the Justice Department's Office of International
Affairs in
Tim May wrote:
excuse me? shouldn't that read "convince the indonesians and russians to
*start a local prosecution based on their own laws*" oh, I forgot.
the US-of-Assholes believes it's laws are valid for everyone and
everywhere.
Unlike the Germans, who have never tried to get
Greg Newby wrote:
Do people on this list really believe that the solution to
problems is to kill people?
Or are we just getting sarcastic and frustrated?
we've run this planet for a couple thousand years by way of killing
people. never touch a running system, you know?
Jim Burnes wrote:
Since when did the Florida Supreme Court have executive authority?
you missed the US's transformation to a courtocracy, didn't you?
Jim Dixon wrote:
Nevertheless, what has happened here demonstrates a basic flaw at the
heart of the domain name system. ICANN and many essential Internet
resources remain subject to US jurisdiction. ICANN itself is just a
California corporation, so it is subject to the passing whims of the
Harmon Seaver wrote:
Has this been discussed on the list in recent (or even ancient)
memory? If so, I can't recall it, and looked thru my own archives going
back a couple years and didn't find it.
http://www.verysafe.com/
why in all hell would you want to do such a thing with a
it seems that core (i.e. the root servers) has deleted the entry for
vote-auction.com - while the whois still works and their primary
nameserver (in austria) still resolves, a regular lookup returns with
"host unknown".
rumour has it that core carved in to demand by most possibly the feds.
here
replace "core" with "internic" in my previous mail - core is simply the
registrar and has vote-auction.com still listed.
Ray Dillinger wrote:
Would there be a market for someone to create an encrypted-services
provider? Would people do this?
I have something like this in the making. if you're working on a
similiar project - why not team up?
Here is what I envision, at a cost of something like $10/month.
Nathan Saper wrote:
Even if they do (which I haven't heard of, but I could be wrong), the
trend right now is more corporate power, less governmental power. As
I said before, we are already seeing this trend, what with
corporations able to circumvent countries' environmental codes and
Nomen Nescio wrote:
from _Onwards to Victory_, Cassell edition, page 100:
"The proud German Army has by its sudden collapse, sudden crumbling and
breaking up...once again proved the truth of the saying, 'The Hun is
either at your throat or at your feet.'"
-- Winston Churchill, speech
Tim May wrote:
What I didn't check was whether the _real_ list, Cypherpunks, was on
the distribution list. It wasn't.
The fuckheads out there who blather about being "coderpunks" and
"cryptorights" warriors are not even posting to Cypherpunks.
tim, don't make a fool of yourself. there's
GENERAL INFO
DATE: September 30th, 2000
TIME: 16:00 (4 pm) CEST
PLACE: Hamburg, "Tex's Bar-B-Q" bar/restaurant at Millerntorplatz 1
LOCATION
See http://www.lemuria.org/cpunk.html for directions
I have also added directions to this page now. here's a copy for those
who don't want to
Ulf Möller wrote:
What I didn't check was whether the _real_ list, Cypherpunks, was on
the distribution list. It wasn't.
there've been several postings to the cypherpunks list about this,
mostly by me.
It's certainly not the first cypherpunks meeting in Europe, but it
sounds interesting
I think this guy put it much better than the official press release. :)
http://www.segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2id=39b6e1b5-0685fba0
Ralf-Philipp Weinmann wrote:
hmm.. we're still talking about hamburg here, right ?
yes
you're right in so
far as since this is the first european cypherpunk meeting one can have
absolutely no idea how many people will be showing. depending on how well
announced the meeting is i'd guess
Tim May wrote:
First, good luck on your meeting.
thanks.
* we in the Bay Area have had numerous informal gatherings at coffee
shops, outdoor seating areas, other public areas (a la '2600"). And
this is with an attendance sometimes reaching 50.
(Which, in my crotchety opinion, is too
Julian Assange wrote:
that's why I'm looking for a place with outside tables. you can just
wander by and see the group, the crypto books, whatever.
The leather. The babes. The machisimo.
ok, who's bringing the babes? :))
maybe you find this interesting - it's an art contest centered on DeCSS:
http://www.lemuria.org/DeArt/
there was a mentioning on a physical meeting in munich/germany. are
there any details, like a date?
John Young wrote:
It looks as though mail to toad is not being forwarded to
the CDR or is being blocked. Jim Bell sent a long
message to toad this morning, and there was a
post from Cindy Cohn about Bernstein's case.
Is mail from toad being blocked permanently, and
if so should I forward
in a follow-up to the recent discussion (mostly between Riad Wahby and
myself) I have decided to code an example implementation and have most
of the details down.
however, there are some crypto-related specifics I'm lacking. if anyone
can help, I'd be happy.
most importantly, is there an
Bill Stewart wrote:
Corporations are artificial entities that exist on paper and
only have those rights arbitrarily granted by governments,
so the government could decide to grant them lesser sets of rights
in return for their corporate privileges.
But if you run a store, without hiding it
As many suspected, Earthlink was only concerned that Carnivore would crash
their system. They have since volunteered to do all the FBI's dirty-work
themselves:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2257522.html
rgds-- TA ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it
Reese wrote:
It's not a matter of feeling victorious. It's a matter of Truth, and yes,
I did miss your callout on FUTURE.
Shake hands and walk away?
sure, let's get on to more important topics. that one got way out of
hand.
Sunder wrote:
but all this is hypothetical, since I'm not talking about industrial
power of 1900 or 1940, but of corporate power in 2000, and especially of
the years yet to come.
Ok, so give us some documentation. How many people did Bill Gates Co kill
and what are the details of their
david wrote:
Lightly regulated would be no big deal. But lightly regulated has always
progressed to tyrannically regulated (and taxed). The history of the USA
is no exception. Business monopolies could never screw up our lives the
way governments do.
you sure about that? I wouldn't bet.
Lizard wrote:
International 'law' is as strong as the strongest nation that supports
the law. The US will only obey such laws as it finds convenient. Deal
with it, Euroeweenies.
if only our politicians would dig that, the european branches of several
large US companies (especially in the
one other point:
Reese wrote:
let me guess: you've never been to europe.
Irrelevant.
you sure?
"I have no basis, nor experience for my claim, but that's irrelevant."
let's discuss some smalltalk. I know almost nothing about that, but just
for the fun of it, I'll claim it's
Reese wrote:
Certainly Afghanistan cost them. So did the annual payments to prop up
Castros Island Paradise of Pain Torture. So did other things. I seem to
recall much being said about Star Wars technology as the straw that broke
the camels back - to abuse the cliché. His detractors did
Declan McCullagh wrote:
This tamd character doesn't seem entirely on the level. There are plenty of
free hosting services he did NOT take advantage of.
but almost all free hosting services will fold immediatly at the first
sight of a letter-from-a-lawyer.
Ed Gerck wrote:
I meant the US, as the case is in the US. However, it is interesting to know what
happens in other countries -- and it reinforces the idea that things like
"uniform dispute resolutions" do not work. The question here, however, would be
if the norwegian law also allows
Peter Capelli wrote:
On a side note, if the census dept. feels that my information is
worth $100 to them, why don't they pay me $100 for it? I thought if
the feds took 'property' (e.g. information) from me they had to
compensate me for that. Since they've set the price at $100, it
48 matches
Mail list logo
