BAN Detweiler(WHAT A LOON)

I THINK ITS TIME TO TAKE DETWEILER OFF THE MAILING LIST,
HE IS CLEARLY ABUSING THE PRIVELGE OF HAVING US AS AN AUDIENCE.
ANY OTHERS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE??
      ANON

> I THINK ITS TIME TO TAKE DETWEILER OFF THE MAILING LIST,
>HE IS CLEARLY ABUSING THE PRIVELGE OF HAVING US AS AN AUDIENCE.
>ANY OTHERS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE??

No.

>      ANON
Did you really need to say this anonymously?  I favor anonymity for
a lot of uses and reasons.  I do not feel that a call to ban some one
is a legitimate reason to use this ability.  How can we guage the
feeling of the mailing-list when the voters are anonymous and therefore
could vote as often as they like? If you feel as though he should
be removed I do not feel that saying so anonymously does anything.
Unless of course you are Detweiler trying to provoke us into
agreeing to perceived censorship on your part.  

In any case I may choose to ignore his messages ala killfiles but I do
not feel that canning him is useful (it would only egg him on) nor
ethical.  

My personal feelings about him do not affect my decision to censor him.
I personally find his rantings to be useless (not all rants, just his)
and largely redundant and my kill file may contain him soon.  (Actually
I hate the killfile idea.... he may one day say something utterly profound
that I might miss out on.)

Oh, uh, I am rather new and I am having a wonderful time wading through
all my mail from all of you.  Particulary the procmail automation of
pgp.

Non-sig-here.

Earlier, nobody@pmantis.berkeley.edu wrote:

>  I THINK ITS TIME TO TAKE DETWEILER OFF THE MAILING LIST,
> HE IS CLEARLY ABUSING THE PRIVELGE OF HAVING US AS AN AUDIENCE.
> ANY OTHERS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE??
>       ANON

If it's reasonably democratic, sure. But L.D. could simply re-appear as
another entity, which means all new additions to the list would have to
be 'investigated'. I don't like this idea.

The best idea to shut L.D. up is to just ignore him and his rants. Don't
reply to them, and don't talk about him. IMHO witch-hunts are low on the
list of credible actions one can take.

Matthew.

ps: I find the arguments interesting, mostly because a lot is gained by
watching how people (entities ?) argue, techniques used and so on, though
this is hardly within the cypherpunk scope of activity.

-- 
Matthew Gream, M.Gream@uts.edu.au
'la lutte continue' - 1968 poster

> I THINK ITS TIME TO TAKE DETWEILER OFF THE MAILING LIST,
> HE IS CLEARLY ABUSING THE PRIVELGE OF HAVING US AS AN
> AUDIENCE. ANY OTHERS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE??
>       ANON

I think it's time we started ignoring Detweiler's shit, stopped
discussing Detweiler, stopped flaming Detweiler, and discussed more
important issues, you know, like cryptography or something. :).

For a while, I thought that encryption was just for folks who had 
something REALLY important in their files -- formulas for the Neutron 
bomb, sales reports to crack dealers, illicit love letters, etc. :<) -- 
so I never bothered. Then, before I left on a sabbatical from my 
university, I reviewed the personal files in my computer there.
  "Hmmm.... only class syllabi, notes, committee reports. Nothing here 
to... Wait a minute!"
  It then occurred to me that some sections of those reports hold very 
sensitive information dealing with retention, tenure, and promotion of 
colleagues. There were also letters of recommendation for students in there.
  "Well, no one's going to look in here. Most of my colleagues are still 
using manual typewriters anyway. But, just in case, I'll just lock these 
files up with Norton Encrypt." -- Not exactly a heavyweight program, but 
adequate to my purposes.
  Then, a couple of months later, I get a call from the Dean. The 
University has  decided to give my computer an Ethernet connection; and 
one of the  techies has asked her (the Dean) for the password to my files 
so he can install the appropriate software.
  Wants the password to my personal files?
  So I went out to the university and confronted the man. Why did he feel 
he needed the password to my personal files in order to install ethernet 
protocol software? 
  I got a song and dance about how some of the software "wasn't working 
right" and so he thought that I might have something in there that 
conflicted with the ethernet software. 
  "But why didn't you just have the Dean contact me to come out and look 
in those files? And don't you think that you should ask before going 
into someone's computer, even to install ethernet software?"
  His answer was this: "These machines belong to the State of California. 
You don't own them. The State does. And any employee of the state -- like 
myself -- can go in any time and do whatever we feel is necessary to 
maintain the machines."
  What a case of chutzpah used to cover up moxie! 
  Needless to say, I objected strongly to this line of "reasoning" and 
suggested -- politely, of course -- that neither he nor anyone else was 
to get into the computer in my office without my express sayso. He walked 
out the door affirming his right to poke around in my computer in the 
name of the state.
  So my files stay encrypted. And if anyone on this list works for an 
organization that holds similar views on the nature of personal files 
within an organization-owned machine, I strongly recommend locking all 
sensitive files -- or putting a password on the whole machine.
   I realize that such tales may have been told in *Cypherpunks* before. 
But there's mine, just for the record.

Arthur Chandler tells an interesting story:
...
>   "Well, no one's going to look in here. Most of my colleagues are still 
> using manual typewriters anyway. But, just in case, I'll just lock these 
> files up with Norton Encrypt." -- Not exactly a heavyweight program, but 
> adequate to my purposes.
>   Then, a couple of months later, I get a call from the Dean. The 
...

Also an argument for using stegonography, to obscure the fact that one
has encrypted files. Companies or universities may have simplistic
policies banning encrypion as a matter of policy, for various and
sundry reasons, and may snoop through networked machines looking for
encrypted files (high entropy, characteristic file types, etc.).

Packing those sensitive resumes and job applications in an innocent
photo of the dean may be a good idea.

--Tim May

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) wrote:

> Also an argument for using stegonography, to obscure the fact that one
> has encrypted files. Companies or universities may have simplistic
> policies banning encrypion as a matter of policy, for various and
> sundry reasons, and may snoop through networked machines looking
> for encrypted files (high entropy, characteristic file types, etc.).
>
> Packing those sensitive resumes and job applications in an innocent
> photo of the dean may be a good idea.

Actually, you could fool a lot of people by creating a hidden disk
partition.  Nobody would know there was anything hidden unless they did
a detailed sector-scan of the disk.  Is there any good software for
doing this with modern operating systems?
It used to be real easy to do stuff like that in the old days when OS
were simple and hackable.  Once someone showed me a trick on an old,
old, Apple DOS; you could change one byte in RAM, and viola, a totally
new directory appeared on the disk!  Pretty cute trick.  Too bad things
ain't that simple anymore. :)

On Thu, 18 Nov 1993, Matthew J Ghio wrote:

> tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) wrote:
> 
> > Also an argument for using stegonography, to obscure the fact that one
> > has encrypted files. Companies or universities may have simplistic
> > policies banning encrypion as a matter of policy, for various and
> > sundry reasons, and may snoop through networked machines looking
> > for encrypted files (high entropy, characteristic file types, etc.).
> >
> > Packing those sensitive resumes and job applications in an innocent
> > photo of the dean may be a good idea.
> 
> Actually, you could fool a lot of people by creating a hidden disk
> partition.  Nobody would know there was anything hidden unless they did
> a detailed sector-scan of the disk.  Is there any good software for
> doing this with modern operating systems?
> It used to be real easy to do stuff like that in the old days when OS
> were simple and hackable.  Once someone showed me a trick on an old,
> old, Apple DOS; you could change one byte in RAM, and viola, a totally
> new directory appeared on the disk!  Pretty cute trick.  Too bad things
> ain't that simple anymore. :)
> 
Ah, but they are, on mac anyways...pop open ResEdit (available from 
ftp.apple.com or in most book stores or development packages), choose 
'get file/folder info' from the file menu, and pick any directory in a 
standard dir/file browser which comes up.  When the info box comes up, 
just click in the 'invisible' box.  When u exit ResEdit, it will ask u if 
u want to save changes.  Click 'yes', and...voila...an invisible 
subdirectory.  Many programs make this interface even easier, too.

				Jim Wise
				wisej@acf4.edu
				jaw7254@acfcluster.nyu.edu