September 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDR: More Columbine fall-out
by Steven Furlong 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Schools must give police blueprints ALBANY - Schools will be required to submit copies of their building plans to local police and fire departments under legislation recently signed into law by Gov. George Pataki. The legislation, proposed by Assemblyman Ronald Canestrari, D-Cohoes, was inspired by last year's shootings at Columbine High School. Canestrari said police at the scene in Colorado did not have floor plans for the school building, which slowed their response to the tragedy. When he introduced the bill last year, Canestrari said a spot check of school districts in the Capital Region showed that some already share building plans with local public safety officials. But others did not, and there was no such mandate in state law, he said. Canestrari's "School Emergency Preparedness Act," sponsored in the Senate by Vincent Leibell, R-Patterson, is to take effect in March 2001. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong(a)acmenet.net

8 7

CDR: Re: police IR searches to Supremes
by Richard Fiero 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Sampo A Syreeni writes: > . . . > >Well, I think that as long as a conventional photograph is taken from a >public place, it does not constitute a punishable breach of privacy. What's >so very different about doing the same thing with IR? > >Sampo Syreeni <decoy(a)iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > One could argue that all electromagnetic radiation is in the public domain and receivable. However it is illegal to have equipment capable of receiving cell phone conversations because the rights of the telephone company and the rights of the conversants could be violated. IR equipment is capable of seeing far more from outside a house than just the wall temperature. This kind of surveillance is clearly invasive, in my opinion.

7 9

CDR: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty
by Gil Hamilton 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

Sampo Syreeni writes: >On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote: > >This certainly gives one good reason not to piss off one's neighbors, eh? > >And if your neighbours are simply malignant? Since when did people need a >reason to harm each other? Then, too bad. They haven't *done* anything to you. > >This is of course the whole point of shunning. It is a way of getting > >people to behave in ways that are approved of by their community. > >Yep. That would be my point. This sounds deceptively like holding someone >at >a gunpoint. It has little to do with liberty. It has everything to do with liberty. The kind of society you envision is nightmarish: where everyone is required by law to act in certain defined ways (not merely to refrain from acts which harm others). > >>becomes precisely as 'violent' as physical violence. Even if psychology > >>isn't the hardest of sciences, it does suggest that isolation does > >>significantly more than simply 'bug' people. > > > >Complete bullshit. In other words, "Violence is whatever I say it is." > >Well, just debunk it. The point was, really, that even while I do have >great >reservations about treating shunning and physical violence as equivalent, I >do not accept the notion of specific liberties being absolute, either. Indeed, you seem to be quite comfortable with police-state tactics so long as the particular set of rules being enforced are those that you approve of. > >>I doubt that. Besides, that someone can be offended all s/he wants, s/he > >>just shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it. (Except, of course, >what > >>the freedoms of expression/thought/association/whatever guarantee.) > > > >So, people should be allowed the freedom of expression, thought and > >association, yet they are prohibited from shunning? You simply can't > >have it both ways. > >Nor do I intend to. The point about shunning is simply about laying out >some >of the well known problems of thorough libertarianism. I do not think such >a >wide application of basic freedoms is automatically the best alternative. It seems that you're really not at all interested in freedom of any kind. Indeed, you share much with the so-called "liberal" elements of US society. Lots of lip service to compassion for other people, equality and brotherhood, all enforced at the point of a gun. > >Either one is free to not associate with someone or they are not (in >which > >case, their "freedom of expression and association" are nothing but lip > >service). > >There is no essential reason why those freedoms couldn't be defined in some >more limited form. It's not like these concepts are black and white. Go to a dictionary and look up the several meanings of "freedom". Then come back and tell me which one of those squares with your notion of people being forced to do things they don't wish to do. > >>I don't see it quite like that. In order to have meaningful freedoms one > >>needs to have the possibility of enjoying them. > > > >Even if it requires *forcing other people* to do things they don't want > >to do. > >Perhaps. Just as we force people not to do some things, like engage in >physical violence. If we give people full control over all aspects of their >association and on any conduct on their property, as you would probably >like, you will most likely end up with the same restrictions (or even >more), >only this time enforced by way of lynch mobs. A complete non sequitur. Indeed diametrically opposed to anything I have said. A lynch mob, almost by definition, is an imposition of brute force against others. (It must have been a tortured mental path indeed that led from the exercising of one's rights to association and enjoyment of one's own property to lynch mobs. Someday maybe you'll take the rest of us along for the ride, eh?) >Look at it this way: if for some reason the survival of each and every >human >being is conditioned on some part of the population doing thing x, wouldn't >you say it is fair to demand that x be done even if the individuals would >not want to? It's not a huge leap from this to limiting such 'inalienable' >rights as the right to property. I reject the premise as ridiculous and contrived. But in a word, no, I wouldn't say it is fair. (Nor am I interested in striving for "fairness", about which more below.) > >People must behave exactly as you define "playing nice". Otherwise, you > >think they must be forced to "play nice". Clearly, you're right and > >everyone else is wrong and everyone else must be forced to do things your > >way. > >Not really. I have no essential trouble giving certain parts of my freedoms >away if that gains me the actual possibility of applying the remaining >parts. And yes, this is the point where you cue in the talk about expanding >governments, Big Brothers and whatnot. It's quite apparent you have no trouble giving up your freedoms. Worse, you have no trouble giving up mine too. > >"Oh, but if they'll just 'play nice' then everyone is free to do as > >they please!" > >Free as in having certain freedoms, which in this case have been more >narrowly tailored. Besides, I've not quite committed to actually advocating >such a model, yet. I'm just asking questions. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more, nor less." said Humpty Dumpty. However, for the rest of us, "freedom" has a certain meaning which you are not "free" to redefine. In Sampo's Orwellian world, "freedom" apparently means something else. > >Except somehow merely refusing to associate with someone is categorized > >by you as physical violence. And apparently as a shop-owner I cannot > >exercise rights over *my own property* if what I choose to do is > >inconvenient for someone else. > >If we, for some reason, have an (in)action, some damage and a strong proof >of causality, it is difficult to justify differential treatment based on >whether the damage comes from action or inaction. Absent a clearly established obligation or responsibility to perform some action, it is quite easy to justify differential treatment. And our legal system at least has always done so. > And as for *your own >property*, it simply isn't given that 1) all things can/should be privately >owned (scarce resources, like the radio spectrum, are a classical >example) or 2) owning certain things or using them in certain ways >shouldn't >perhaps come with extra obligations (like using RF communication with extra >responsibilities to minimize interference). I don't consider the radio spectrum to be particularly scarce, nor do I support the necessity for it to be government-controlled. Nonetheless, such a shared resource is not at all the subject that was being discussed. > >The shop owner must be *forced* to tolerate behavior he doesn't approve > >of? What happened to his right to his own property? Must he also > >allow people to have sex in his shop? Or masturbate? Or curse? Or > >insult his customers? Or slander the shopkeeper? Or sing loudly? > >Some of the above, perhaps. If people are indeed dependent on shopping for >their survival, I do think their right to live sort of preempts the shop >owner's property rights. In other words, the shop owner *has* no rights. Only responsibilities. And if he behaves well, Sampo's world will let him keep some of the benefits of his property and his labor. (Not too much though! He might start to think he has a right to it!) > >Which set of things must he be forced to accept? And if he throws > >someone out for engaging in one of these behaviors, which things will > >cause the Men With Guns to come and arrest *him* for "violating their > >right of expression"? > >Those are particulars of the social contract in effect in the corresponding >society. They need not be universal. "Er, I really don't like to get too specific." > >Since food and the like are necessities of life, isn't anyone free to > >come in and just take whatever they like from the shop? After all, > >"What if you do not have the means? You just die?" No, clearly the > >shopkeeper would be "doing violence" to me if he tried to prevent me > >from taking what I need to live. > >That is an extremely good question. In fact a central one to liberal >theory. >I most certainly do not have an answer. Your answer is already quite clear. > >Life is unfair. Get over it. Those that depend on others for their > >well-being or continued survival would do well to be more polite to > >them. > >So, essentially, if somebody can oppress others, why not? Especially if >there's profit or fun to it? Again this has little to do with liberty as I >understand the concept. "Oppress"? Where did that come from? Again, your words are slippery and seem to mean whatever you want them to mean from moment to moment. I don't consider my failure to do as you wish I would "oppression". > >If you live at home with Mommy and Daddy, then you'd better > >behave as they specify. Likewise, if you must rely on commerce with > >others for your survival, you'd better think twice about offending them. > >But even when you're *real* nice to them, they still have the incentive to >exploit you. If you go this way, all the nice talk about liberties and >freedom don't matter squat. First "oppress", now "exploit". You've been reading your Marx again, haven't you? Again, my failure to satisfy your every whim does not constitute "exploitation". > Could you explain how this differs from >fascism? Fascism? I don't see the relationship. Indeed, it is your notion that people must be forced to act in certain ways by an all-powerful government, not mine. > >In Sampo's world, it's okay to force someone to provide service to > >those who insult them or offend them. I wonder whatever happened to > >*their* liberties. > >They got limited. That is what happens when you live in a society. Whoever >said life is fair? Certainly not I. Liberty is another word you could stand to look up. Liberty does not equal equality. Nor is equality a goal I would espouse for the kind of society I believe in, since that inevitably means taking from those who have more and giving to those who have less (without regard to whether they "deserve" it or not). - GH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

4 8

CDR: Re: police IR searches to Supremes
by Michael Motyka 01 Oct '00

01 Oct '00

> >On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Fiero wrote: > >>One could argue that all electromagnetic radiation is in the public >>domain and receivable. However it is illegal to have equipment capable >>of receiving cell phone conversations because the rights of the >>telephone company and the rights of the conversants could be violated. > >That is one part of legislation I find completely unbelievable. I view it as >a case of people having far too high expectations of privacy which shouldn't >be kept up artificially. > >Sampo Syreeni <decoy(a)iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university > No expectation of privacy is too high. Just as the police are "artificially" allowed to spy on people by being funded through public monies that allow them manpower and equipment, they can be "artificially" commanded to piss off. One artifice deserves another. Allowing selective use of technology does seem to be a bad idea - it's usually the authorities who are selected as allowed and anyone else incarcerated after being economically destroyed. If we allow IR imaging without restriction there will be legal precendents required and even some economic benefits. The fact of a higher than average electric bill or a heat source unlike heat sources in similar buildings must be found to be evidence of nothing beyond the use of electricity and subsequent generation of heat. Zero justification for a search warrant. The benny will be a whole new industry to make clothing with a high metallic content. This would also work as a counter to the mm wave imaging that has been around since the 80's and seems to be going mainstream. Mike

6 5

CDR: no subject
by Joe_17096 30 Sep '00

30 Sep '00

send me some of those pictures please

1 0

CDR: Re: none
by David Marshall 30 Sep '00

30 Sep '00

"craigjackson" <craigjackson(a)supanet.com> writes: > hey you got any user names and passwords for Babylon-x > > if please e-mail em to me @ y_2_jackson(a)hotmail.com Babylons One, Two, and Three were sabotaged and destroyed. Babylon Four disappeared twenty-four hours after becoming operational. In 2260, it was discovered that Babylon Four was pulled back in time more than one thousand years to aid in the First Great War. Babylon Five was scuttled around 2282; there would never be another. We know nothing of Babylon Ten.

1 0

CDR: Avi in Cryptonomicon
by Steve Furlong 30 Sep '00

30 Sep '00

Someone asked a while ago what is Avi's last name in _Cryptonomicon_. It's Halaby. Page 301. -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 518-374-4720 sfurlong(a)acmenet.net

2 1

CDR: Re: AES winner to be announced Monday.
by brflgnk＠cotse.com 30 Sep '00

30 Sep '00

No one in particular said: Assuming this is true, there is only one algorithm that is not explicitly mentioned in Hitachi's claim: Rijndael. -------------- Interesting that Rijndael may be the winner. See http://www.counterpane.com/rijndael.html

1 0

CDR: Suggested Reading
by Jim Choate 30 Sep '00

30 Sep '00

Algebraic Coding Theory E.R. Berlekamp ISBN n/a LoC 68-17175 (out of print) c. 1968 ?$ ($14 used) This is a book put out by Bell describing various methods and techniques of coding and compression in digital logic. Would be useful if designing algorithms in hardware. There is also some discussion of older codes and some technique for designing codes. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

None
by craigjackson 30 Sep '00

30 Sep '00

hey you got any user names and passwords for Babylon-x if please e-mail em to me @ y_2_jackson(a)hotmail.com

1 0