September 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDR: Test - please delete
by Gil Hamilton 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

Sorry - please ignore. _________________________________________________________________________ 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.

1 0

CDR: Info retrieval with known drivers license
by Jill Stone 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

If you know a Drivers License number, do you know how to retrieve the registration information? js

4 3

CDR: Ode to Choate
by Anonymous 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

Oh, most amusing witling, How thou dost inspire me! For, upon seeing thine putid words Penetrating the sanctity of our Merry dialogue with your claims of Choateworldian Physics in contradiction to Reality, I say: "Nay! I wilst not have this." To the file thou dost go! Ploink.

1 0

CDR: Re: <nettime> Rebirth of Guilds
by David Honig 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

At 01:42 PM 9/23/00 -0400, Jim Choate wrote: >The failure of capitalism is the failure to recognize that human beings >have rights and that business is simply an expression of individual >rights. Rights allow one to pursue an activity until that behaviour >infringes anothers right to engage in their activity (in this case raising >their children). Having a child gives you no extra rights to control others' behavior. If you don't want to see lesbians kiss, stay out of the ballpark. [the latter a reference to two lesbians being evicted from a baseball game for kissing (yes, in Calif, in 2000), when mixed-sex couples were doing the same. the baseball corporation thereafter recanted, and gave 5K tickets to homosexual groups, thereby saving themselves a major lawsuit]

9 16

CDR: Re: Re: police IR searches to Supremes
by Michael Motyka 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

> I'm having a very difficult time comprehending how plant >lights could even remotely be construed as "probable cause" -- don't the >courts have any idea of the millions of little old ladies (and whoever) >who use plant lights for their house plants? Or of the multitudes who >use them to jump start gardens every Spring, or the many who actually >grow veggies hydroponically in their basement? > >-- >Harmon Seaver, MLIS Systems Librarian > I think that the typical indoor growers they go after are not starting a few seedlings or lighting their African Violets. The typical find is an entire room set up as a greenhouse. Those get pretty hot. I think in the past step one has been to search Electrical Utilities records ( reduced expectation of privacy? ) and look for statistical outliers. Then you go image the place ( no expectation of privacy, apparently ) and say yup, there's 2kW of lights in one room, can only mean one thing. Then they don their gear and go bust some heads. Oops. I meant to say they get a warrant and then they don their gear and go bust some heads. Unless they're sure that some children are in danger then they skip right by the warrant nonsense, don their gear and go bust some heads. They like the busting heads part. It's cool. They also follow people home from stores that supply hydroponics equipment on the assumption that the only people who need this sort of stuff are criminals. Seems buying hydroponics gear is cause to begin surveillance. The war on drugs is yet another case of the cure being worse than the disease. In fact the cure is a whole new ( well, not that new ) vile disease in itself. Mike BTW I tried the hydroponic vegatables thing once. Some fresh greens or spices are nice but it's not economical to use electric lights exclusively.

2 1

CDR: Re: Why Free Speech Matters
by Bill Stewart 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

At 07:33 AM 9/28/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > >On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Duncan Frissell wrote: >> To hold otherwise would mean that property didn't exist. I want the right >> to exclude anyone from my property (government agents for example). > >If it's a business and it's 'public' access then the ONLY reason you would >have a right to exclude anyone would be if they interfered with your >freedom to execute the business. > >See the comments I made about the difference between a 'private' and >'public' business. I didn't see them, but I assume you define a public business as one you want to be able to boss around, and a private business to be one you don't care about bossing around? There are several layers of activity and ownership in this ballpark case. If the ballpark were owned and managed by an individual or partnership, and the owner(s) told the women to leave, they've got a problem because they sold them a ticket to the game. On the other hand, the women could have engaged in behavior that was sufficiently disruptive that throwing them out would have been appropriate (e.g. kissing on home plate while the game was going on, instead of in the stands), and most courts would side with the ballpark in that case. However, the owners would have the moral right to refuse to sell them tickets in the future - that's part of the owners' personal freedom, just as either refusing to watch ballgames at that stadium or leading a boycott against major-league assholes is part of the women's personal freedom. Whether the owners _should_ do something like that is a separate issue (get real - that'd be inappropriate in Redneckville, let alone SF or LA). But if it's their park, Darwin will take care of them. Some liberals like Choate think that the public can't be trusted _as individuals_ not to do business with bigots, so the public needs to hire legislators to harass bigots for them. It's a mistake - if the public are bigoted enough that that's a problem, they typically elect legislators who make laws mandating separate bathrooms for nonwhites and separate but equal government-funded schools and mandatory school uniforms and bans on gang colors or clan tartans, and keeping colored immigants out of the country even if they're refugees from US-funded military dictatorships. The only time it's safe to trust the legislature with moral issues is after the people become moral, at which point you don't need legislation. But the women weren't thrown out by the owner, they were thrown out by an employee. The owner has some responsibility for the employee's actions, because the employee is acting for the owner, but unlike an owner, the employee has a responsibility not to be stupid. (As noted above, stupid owners are at their own risk...) The appropriate thing for the owner to do is damage control, whether that's instituting sensitivity training for employees or profuse apologies for the rude behavior of his ex-employee. Presumably the employee acted because of a complaint from other customers, rather than thinking it up on his own, but he should have had the sense to do something else, like offer the complainers or the lesbians a better seat, or tell the complainers that yelling "Ewwww, Grossss!!!" is annoying to the other customers and makes them look like rubes. Corporations are a special case - almost everything is done by employees, though some employees are also stockholders, but unlike businesses operated by their owners, they're a legal fiction created by the government, so if the government wants to attach strings to the favors it grants, they're not violating the rights of the recipients. If the government bans or regulates businesses from operating except in return for accepting the strings, that's a different problem, and the favors that it grants may not be legitimate for it to grant, but in general, if you don't like corporate regulations, don't be a corporation, be a proprietor. Most of this is moot in San Francisco - with Socialized Baseball, the city government kicked in a lot of money to the ball teams to help build the stadium and encourage the team to stay in town. The whole thing's a crock, and the sports team have a great scam going by threatening to leave town if they're not bribed to stay, but the city should have some say over how the place is run (regardless of whether the local version of the scam leaves them owning the stadium like some cities or just lending to the team's building project like other cities.) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: CDR: Why Free Speech Matters
by Bill Stewart 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

At 07:20 PM 9/27/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >There is a deeper point that needs to be made you're glossing right over. > >It has to do with that term 'free' or 'freedom' you keep throwing around. >Your application does not do justice to the meaning of the term. > >The reality is that 'freedom' means (even in crypto-anarchy circles) the >right (note that word Timmy) to engage in whatever behaviour one chooses >so long as it is consensual and doesn't abridge anothers right to >expression. > >Trying to 'shun' somebody for their non-invasive behaviour >(e.g. two dykes kissing in a ball park) is the peak of anti-freedom. >If a person really respects freedom it is more >than 'freedom for me but not for thee'. Jim, you've always come out strongly in favor of regulating businesses that do things in ways you don't like, and using government to do it rather than market forces. That's 'freedom for me but not for thee', whether the behavior in question is kissing people or selling them stuff. The basic choices you have for regulating people's behavior in society are talking to them, not talking to them, or beating them up. In most "civilized" societies, beating people up is frowned on except when the government does it, and governments provide lots of mechanisms for chicken out before they have to resort to violence (doing what the business regulators tell you to do, or paying the fine, or going to jail peacefully instead of shooting your way out, but all of these are things you do because the government will otherwise shoot you, and periodically they hold a Waco to remind you that they will.) In a more civilized society, whether it's an anarchy or just a society where people ignore the police whenever possible, that leaves you with ignoring people who do things you dislike, or refusing to do business with them, or organizing boycotts, or picketing or other forms of expressing your dislike for how a person runs his business activities or non-business activities. >The kissing of the girls was nobodies business, in or out >of the park in a FREE society. I think most of us agree that the ballpark acted like major-league assholes, but that's a separate discussion. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

CDR: Internet News Flash!
by Free Web Sites 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

(What's New on the NET! UCE/ADVERTISEMENT) THIS IS A SPECIAL INTERNET NEWS FLASH! FREE GIVEAWAYS ON THE NET JUST GOT EVEN BETTER! HOT NEW FREEBEE - HOT NEW FREEBEE - HOT NEW FREEBEE FREE WebSites with a Twist...GET PAID TO GIVE THEM AWAY! FREE ARTICLE TELLS ALL ABOUT IT! "How to earn $147,620 or More Giving Away FREE Websites. To Get Your FREE Article.. Just click & send. mailto:freereport@cyberteamusa.com?subject=Article$147,620 The Internet Gold Rush is On, Get Your Share! Tom Gray freewebsites(a)cyberteamusa.com (NO SPAM POLICY) You are receiving this mail because your name appeared on a opt-in e-mail list that we both belong to, previous internet postings, visits to one of our affiliate web sites, or you may have responded to an ad as someone interested in business opportunities on the internet. If you are no longer interested in New Ideas then just click link below and send. mailto:freewebsites@cyberteamusa.com?Subject=REMOVE

1 0

CDR: Internet News Flash!
by Free Web Sites 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

(What's New on the NET! UCE/ADVERTISEMENT) THIS IS A SPECIAL INTERNET NEWS FLASH! FREE GIVEAWAYS ON THE NET JUST GOT EVEN BETTER! HOT NEW FREEBEE - HOT NEW FREEBEE - HOT NEW FREEBEE FREE WebSites with a Twist...GET PAID TO GIVE THEM AWAY! FREE ARTICLE TELLS ALL ABOUT IT! "How to earn $147,620 or More Giving Away FREE Websites. To Get Your FREE Article.. Just click & send. mailto:freereport@cyberteamusa.com?subject=Article$147,620 The Internet Gold Rush is On, Get Your Share! Tom Gray freewebsites(a)cyberteamusa.com (NO SPAM POLICY) You are receiving this mail because your name appeared on a opt-in e-mail list that we both belong to, previous internet postings, visits to one of our affiliate web sites, or you may have responded to an ad as someone interested in business opportunities on the internet. If you are no longer interested in New Ideas then just click link below and send. mailto:freewebsites@cyberteamusa.com?Subject=REMOVE

1 0

CDR: Re: RE - CC
by Reese 29 Sep '00

29 Sep '00

At 03:12 PM 28/09/00 -0400, Ldave109(a)aol.com wrote: >Sorry,I am the FEDS FBI with D-Platoon of SWAT ready to stop you because many >of Cypher's mailers responded with valid Credit Card numbers.You will be >arrested with your team or teammates.I will hope for cooperation. We were >conducting credit card test to see if anyone had valid cards.We found PLENTY. >Eighteen of them have been aprehended already.Thank You.Crime Does Not PAY. > > Sincerely, > Tom Runyon FBI,Serial # - 159837 Fuck off.

1 0