My favorite quote
from Phill on libertarians: "All the libertariacrap is just that,
prattling of a bunch of blinkered idealogues who know diddly squat
about the net, their ass or their elbow."
It was true then and its true now.
I helped change the world. You guys sat on your ass and debated
At 20:31 3/9/2000 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I helped change the world. You guys sat on your ass and debated
theology - policing each other for political correctness as
assiduously as any Trotskyite faction.
Hahahahaha... What Matt wrote is correct, of course, but at least this part
of
age-
From: Tim May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 12:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vin McLellan Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 8:48 AM -0800 3/4/00, Steve Mynott wrote:
I would have thought the very name "cypherpunks" suggests list
On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 12:19:03AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I don't think anyone has accussed Markoff of actually falsifying the emails
exchanged between Mitnick and his accomplices and I refered to the book
only to establish that the material was already in the public domain and
In response to Steve Mynott: the name cypherpunk is due to John
Gilmore
No, this is not correct.
Ooops, sorry Tim! On the net you both look alike you know.
I'll get it right in the book.
Phill
smime.p7s
Phill wrote:
I know enough people who were involved in the previous investigations
of Mitnick to corroborate the points I made, namely that Mitnick is a nasty
piece of work and a pathetic loser rather than the harmless chap his
defence attorney would have people believe.
Watching Mitnick
At 8:48 AM -0800 3/4/00, Steve Mynott wrote:
I would have thought the very name "cypherpunks" suggests list
sympathies lie more on the "hacker" side then on those of
self-professed security experts.
On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 07:30:24PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
When cypherpunks was
To the contrary, there have been questions raised about the book by
journalists who are not in any way a "Mitnick supporter." Check out way
back issues of CuD. Mitnick may well be a loser but that does not mean
everything written about him was true.
-Declan
t 10:57 3/4/2000 -0500, Phillip
- Original Message -
From: Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Matthew
Gaylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: Vin McLellan Charles Mudd On Denial of Service Attacks
At 07:30
Markoff. Isn't that the guy who may have fabricated (artistic license)
portions of a less than adequately documented book for personal profit,
then collaborated on an even more ficticious movie?
"May have fabricated", you don't have any proof, but you don't like what
he wrote. As Cartman
It's worth pondering what demonization and criminalization
may evolve from close study of the early Cypherpunk archives
made availalble a few days ago by Ralph Seberry :
http://lanesbry.com/cypherpunks
After a fews days of reading those remarkable exchanges, it would
be a surprise if they
In support of Vin's case, it is not unusual for hackers to claim noble
motives for their actions that are completely refuted when their private
communications come to light. A key example of the type being Kevin Mitnick
whose protestations of having never intended harm are contradicted by the
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Sent with permission. Charles Mudd's
rebuttal appears at the end of Vin McLellan's comments. I thought
both posts covered some interesting territory.]
From: Vin McLellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hearings on Denial of Service Attacks
Charlz
13 matches
Mail list logo
