November 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

Nobody is saying that free expression includes inciting a riot or soliciting murder. But it does generally include the right to write a book (and read it) without being targeted by the government. What you wrote that raised eyebrows was this: >I sure hope that the government is investigating and following each and every >person who buys a copy of this book... I wonder if there's a way to force >Tobiason to foot the bill for that security? There are plenty of books I can think of -- almost all of the Loompanics catalog -- that would fret some government official. David Burnham's books on the IRS and DOJ abuses of power are another. But I hardly think it's consistent with the First Amendment to investigate the people who buy them, or make the authors pay "protection money" for the privilege of publishing. Then you wrote in the message below: >How many sets of these "terrorism cookbooks" do you let fall >into the hands of psychotics? We already don't sell guns to convicted >felons... > gee, that sounds to me like "prior restraint"... or do you think THAT's > wrong, >too? There are some things that are so terrible that you simply can't wait to >prosecute or criminalize until AFTER the fact of their happening. My translation of that is "we must require background checks on people who buy books, newspapers, or magazines" that some FBI officials dislike. (I look forward to seeing how you'll extend this to the Internet. AdultCheck, anyone? How about posts on the cypherpunks list or other fora that include more scientific or technical information than you feel comfortable with?) My translation of your last sentence is "we must criminalize the publication of certain technical or scientific information just because some bad people may get their hands on it." Comparing background checks for gun purchasers (in an approving way) to background checks to books is just nutty. Now do you see why your post is so at odds with the principles of a free society? If not, I'm not sure you're educable on this issue. -Declan At 02:33 AM 11/22/2001 -0600, gep2(a)terabites.com wrote: >On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> wrote: > >Clearly "gep2" does not understand principles of free expression > >and limited government. A shame. > >I understand free expression and limited government just fine. > >Free expression does not include shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, >and it >also doesn't include inciting a riot or soliciting murder. > >Unfortunately, there are plenty of lunatics and crazies in our society, >and you >simply can't let those types of people have their finger on the nuclear >button >(it's bad enough when our _President_ [especially THIS one] can do that). > >Some suicidal maniac or manic depressive (or even just mean drunk) could >easily >just get pissed off and decide to take 100,000 or a million or something >other >people out with him... we've had situations like that (snipers from the >tower at >UT Austin, dispondent students in high schools, Timother McVeigh, and so >forth... fortunately limited by their technical capability to kill on a >MASSIVE >scale.) > >It's bad enough when someone like Osama bin Laden kills several thousands of >people with hijacked airliners. (At least there, there IS a response >possible... for better or for worse... as we've seen). > >It's quite another matter when some maniac commits suicide and takes half a >million or a million other people out with him. (And how do you respond >THEN? >Presuming here that you're talking about some right-wing wacko (American >citizen!) who's already now dead? Does the government just say, "Gee, isn't >that just awful!"? Or you do something to try to prevent it from happening >BEFORE it does?) > >And if it DID happen... do you sit back and let some copycat then do it >again? >And another do it AGAIN? How many times do you just sit back and wring your >hands in despair? How many sets of these "terrorism cookbooks" do you let >fall >into the hands of psychotics? We already don't sell guns to convicted >felons... > gee, that sounds to me like "prior restraint"... or do you think THAT's > wrong, >too? > >There are some things that are so terrible that you simply can't wait to >prosecute or criminalize until AFTER the fact of their happening. > >Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/ >Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/ >12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent". >12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.

3 3

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities?
by Anonymous 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

> Again, the First Amendment has its limits. If some organization were to > publish > a "you can build it at home in your spare time" cookbook recipe of how to > create > an innovative sort of nuclear weapon capable of destroying a large city, I'd > expect for the government to step in and prevent its publication and sale... > purely as a matter of national security. Now THERE, it's true that getting > "enough" nuclear fuel is nontrivial, but in the case of biological (and even > some chemical) weapons, the potential for actual (and not just imagined) > mischief is far greater, and the harm that could be done is far too high to > dismiss as being simply hypothetical until after the fact. Are you aware that fairly explicit instructions were just last week published on the internet for building basement nukes? Sorry, you are dead wrong -- the First Amendment has no limits. And anyone who thinks so plainly needs killing.

1 0

Get A Piece Of This FREE Offer !!!
by allfree＠ozemail.com.au 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

HEY COME PLAY WITH US FOR *FREE* GET YOUR **ABSOLUTELY FREE** VIP PASS To the 9 best porn sites on the web --> CLICK HERE NOW http://216.87.16.120/freejoin30/enter.html JUST CLICK THE LINK TO GET YOUR FREE HARDCORE ACCESS 9 OF THE BEST SITES ON THE NET ALL **ABSOLUTELY FREE* --> ACT IMMEDIATELY http://216.87.16.120/freejoin30/enter.html JOIN 1 OR JOIN ALL 9 - THEY ARE *ALL* FREE! NEVER PAY FOR PORN AGAIN --> DON'T DELAY http://216.87.16.120/freejoin30/enter.html WARNING: This site contains explicit sexual material. You must be 18 or older to proceed. *************************************************************** REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS: This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation. You must have either posted an AD to one of our FFA sites, signed up at one of our web-sites, requested information from us on any one of a number of our continually changing offers, or responded to one of our past email letters. If you do not want to receive further emails or any other information from us, or you have received this mail in error, for immediate removal please click the link below: http://backdoormail.com/goremove/index.html

1 0

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

At 12:44 PM 11/22/2001 -0600, gep2(a)terabites.com wrote: On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> wrote: >>There are plenty of books I can think of -- almost all of the Loompanics >>catalog -- that would fret some government official. David Burnham's books >>on the IRS and DOJ abuses of power are another. >There's a huge difference between a book that blows the whistle on government misdoings and abuses versus a book that gives a detailed recipe on how some disgruntled lunatic with $10 in their pocket can kill tens of thousands, maybe even millions, of other people "from your basement, in your spare time". Many of the works in the Loompanics catalogue are practical, how-to, manuals on manufacture and use of weapons, some now classed as illegal. >ESPECIALLY when that book discusses (and presumably encourages) the distribution of anthrax and other home-cultured lethal pathogens by letters in the mail, and in light of recent events bearing a striking similarity to that, I think it's obvious that people who bought this guy's book or CD are certainly at least among the list of prime suspects. (And I'd think that it simply makes sense to investigate, and monitor the activities of the rest of the purchasers to try to uncover if they're just "curious" as an academically interesting subject, or to see if they have a more sinister purpose.) The barriers to law enforcement in obtaining this type of information is part of the balance struck between individual civil liberties and the easy with which law enforcement is able to carry out some of their mandate to identify and capture criminals. It is only in a police state that law enforcement's job is "easy." Despite my concern over the possession of such information by some who have plans to use it to hurt others, I have no interest in seeing this balance tipped toward enforcement. >Obviously we as a nation were largely blindsided by the September 11th disaster, and we've been roundly criticized due to the obvious failure of intelligence to see this coming and head it off somehow. While we can't ALWAYS achieve that, it's clear that we need to do better in that area. Anyone who looked for their inept government security agencies to provide all or most of their security were fools. Any who continue to look for this protection going forward are larger fools. To paraphrase P.T. Barnum, "A fool and their life are soon parted." Your safety is most assured when you take personal responsibility. The reasons for this failure have been much publicized and ignored over the past two decades. The massive funding of these agencies post Sept. 11 are unlikely to have any immediate positive effects as money was never the primary problem. >There's plenty of other things that "ordinary" folk simply don't have much need to buy and own. [very-]Large-denomination currency, perhaps. This seems to be based on the assumption that one does not have a fundamental right to property: the right to possess it or transfer it. That roadblocks need to be erected to prevent us from efficiently exercising this right. The right to privacy, especially financial privacy is a basis of democratic government. By limiting the manner in which one may hold property, especially without the knowledge of government agencies or ones neighbors, we greatly limit our freedom of private property ownership and privacy. >Nuclear weapons. > High explosives and blasting caps. Shoulder-launced antiaircraft missiles. I'm sure you can think of others. I'd put anthrax and other biological or chemical weapons into that category, too. I'd hope that anyone buying (or attempting to buy) such stuff would at least slightly raise an eyebrow on the part of SOMEONE charged with helping to maintain a society that's safe to live in. It's clearly NOT enough to only monitor such things on the part of madmen like Saddam Hussein... clearly, we have crazy people right here in the United States, too. They're no less in need of at least some oversight to make sure that they don't go off the deep end and endanger as much as an entire city (or possibly even worse). >From the Declaration of Independence the right of individuals to overthrow their governments when THEY feel that it has come ignore basic civil liberties has been enshrined. While some might insist that massive civil unrest is the only legitimate means of achieving an overthrow I would remind you that fewer than 10% of the American Colonials took an active part in the Revolution. This was definitely a case of asymmetrical warfare and the British considered these Colonists terrorists (although this term was not used). Without the help of France is most unlikely that our side would have prevailed. Abraham Lincoln : "Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." "First Inaugural Address" (available at http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it." (Speech in the United States House of Representatives, Jan. 12, 1848) You or I certainly couldn't consider overthrowing our government with a pistol, rifle or shotgun. The individual possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is fundamental to exercise of our rights. The Supreme Court essentially came to this conclusion in the case of Miller vs. U.S, but shortly thereafter it beat a hasty retreat in Case vs. U.S. "In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench m! ortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result." http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html So, where we sit now is that we have a fundamental right to overthrow our government by violence but the discussion of this subject or possession of the means is a felony. >>But I hardly think it's >>consistent with the First Amendment to investigate the people who buy them, >>or make the authors pay "protection money" for the privilege of publishing. >It's hardly reasonable for taxpayers as a whole to have to pay the high costs of security that are created by an irresponsible individual who is creating a very dangerous situation just to earn a few fistfulls of dollars (and to quite purposefully create that danger). When someone creates a highly dangerous condition that results in heavy costs to someone else (whether to correct the problem, or even to protect themselves against the possible problem) then courts have traditionally found that the damaged party has a civil claim against the person creating that hazard. But since this expensive security has now been shown to be ineffective don't you think those citizens are entitled to a refund? These expenditures were foolish but should individuals be held responsible for the folly of their fellow citizens? Should I be able to sue our government for reimbursement of the costs of living in a gated and guarded community because I think the police have "created a dangerous condition" by not providing an adequate level of protection to my family? This is a fools game. >Again, the First Amendment has its limits. If some organization were to publish a "you can build it at home in your spare time" cookbook recipe of how to create an innovative sort of nuclear weapon capable of destroying a large city, I'd expect for the government to step in and prevent its publication and sale... purely as a matter of national security. Section 4.0 Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html >Just as very few Americans (in fact I suspect this is true for most of the world) will shed great tears when ObL is captured or killed, I think that few of them will be very upset when this guy selling "murder millions of your fellow citizens" cookbooks is eliminated. Nor shall I when those of my fellow citizens who with a fundamental lack of constitutional awareness call for such results meet a similar fate. >Now do you see why your post is so at odds with the principles of a free >society? If not, I'm not sure you're educable on this issue. >Clearly we're going to lose some of our freedoms. :-((( I just hope that those losses can be minimized. Meanwhile, it's bastards like this guy selling these terrorism training manuals who are ultimately more part of the problem than they are part of the solution. This no more a far gone conclusion than that some of those who passed these new measures or attempt to enforce them will lose their lives in doing so.

1 0

National ID is now a cinch :-).
by R. A. Hettinga 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

http://www.tray.com/ > UPDATE: Mon Nov 19, 2001 > > Security In Lobbying > Majority Leader Daschleís wife, Linda, registers to lobby for >Intelli-Check Inc of Woodbury, NY, a company that produces identification >systems. Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell will provide assistance in >familiarizing agencies with companyís ID systems. The form states Linda >Daschle voluntarily does not lobby the U.S. Senate. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

At 12:44 PM 11/22/01 -0600, gep2(a)terabites.com wrote: >Again, the First Amendment has its limits. Nope. How unAmerican. Are you British? If some organization were to publish >a "you can build it at home in your spare time" cookbook recipe of how to create >an innovative sort of nuclear weapon capable of destroying a large city, I'd >expect for the government to step in and prevent its publication and sale... Speaking of which do you find chocolate agar to be a better culture medium than uncooked blood agar? And when oxygenating the culture can you just bubble air or do you see better results from pure O2? >The idea that this nitwit is "only just" publishing this kind of material and >not HIMSELF committing the resulting crimes (and it could WELL be that the >anthrax attacks already seen here are the work of one or more of his customers) >and that he therefore should be allowed to continue these sales unimpeded and >unmonitored is rather like saying that Osama bin Laden is only running terrorism >training camps, producing snazzy recruitment videos, publishing terrorism >handbooks and providing other logistical support but that nothing he's done has >actually CAUSED anybody to go out and commit these horrible atrocities. > >Again, sorry, I don't agree. Presumably there is a lot of causal evidence that can't be shown. Making videos is never a crime. (Vs. coercing actors, or using the state to censor) >>>How many sets of these "terrorism cookbooks" do you let fall >>>into the hands of psychotics? The most dangerous psychotics are the elected ones. BTW Gordon you use "we" far too much, as if you are speaking for others than your lil' ole self. We find this annoying.

1 0

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)
by Tim May 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

On Wednesday, November 21, 2001, at 12:09 PM, Eugene Leitl wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:58:28 -0600 >> From: gep2(a)terabites.com >> Subject: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. >> To: dallasdemocrats(a)egroups.com, dave(a)farber.net >> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 >> >> Here's a disturbing story from today's New York Times: >> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21BOOK.html?todaysheadlines >> >> I sure hope that the government is investigating and following each >> and every >> person who buys a copy of this book... I wonder if there's a way to >> force >> Tobiason to foot the bill for that security? >> This "gep2" character is typical of people who don't understand that the First Amendment does not give any power to government to ban such books...or to "follow each and every person," or to get their identities. Government agents who infringe the Constitution have earned killing. The part of the article where the government official says such books "should be illegal" is especially telling. I hope they try to illegalize such books. It will radicalize more people, and maybe hasten the day when festering holes like Washington, D.C. are annihilated. --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater

5 6

powergrab 2001: Must the law "tell the truth and for everybody to follow the law"
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011124/us/attacks_posse_comitatus_1.html Saturday November 24 5:00 AM ET 1878 Military Law Gets New Attention By T.A. BADGER, Associated Press Writer SAN ANTONIO (AP) - America's military is largely prohibited from acting as a domestic police force, but with the increased fears of terrorism, some experts say it's time to rethink those restrictions. ``Our way of life has forever changed,'' wrote Sen. John Warner (news - bio - voting record), R-Va., in a letter last month to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ``Should this law now be changed to enable our active-duty military to more fully join other domestic assets in this war against terrorism?'' The law, known as the Posse Comitatus Act, was championed by Southern lawmakers in 1878 who were angry about the widespread use of the Army in post-Civil War law enforcement. It currently bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying in October before the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), agreed that it might be desirable to give federal troops more of a role in domestic policing to prevent terrorism. ``In certain cases we can do more than anyone else in the country because of the special capabilities that we have,'' he said. Those roles could be varied, such as helping local law enforcement in the event of a terrorist attack, patrolling the nation's borders or serving as armed sky marshals aboard flights over the United States. But the issue of expanding the military's domestic reach sharply divides lawyers who have spent years studying Posse Comitatus, Latin for ``power of the county.'' Dennis Corrigan, a retired colonel who taught the law at the Army's Judge Advocate General's school, says legislators should resist the urge to change it. The military isn't trained to be a police force, he says, so it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, logistical support. All of these activities are allowable under Posse Comitatus. ``There should be a partnership between the military and civilian sectors - the civilian doing the confrontation and the military providing support,'' said Corrigan, now a businessman living in Gilford, N.H. ``I'm not sure, even with what's going on today, that Congress wants the military arresting people.'' Jeffrey Addicott, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army JAG Corps, wrote that the law handcuffs the nation when it comes to responding to terrorist attacks. ``We've got a homeland defense office, but if there's not reforms, the Posse Comitatus Act will cut them off at the knees,'' Addicott, now a law professor at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, said in a recent interview. ``This is a new kind of war,'' Addicott said. ``We have to make a compromise now to prevent these guys from committing an act of terror on a larger scale.'' Army Secretary Thomas White said late last month that the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s review of Posse Comitatus would not likely lead to recommendations that Congress overhaul the act. ``But we are looking at the details of the law to see if revisions are appropriate in the way it's executed or the exceptions that can be taken,'' White said. Exceptions over the years have seen armed federal troops used for drug interdiction and patrol of the U.S.-Mexico border to enforce immigration laws with mixed results. In 1997, a Marine corporal on a drug surveillance patrol shot and killed an 18-year-old goat herder in the Texas desert about 200 miles southeast of El Paso. A Marine inquiry determined its personnel were not adequately trained for the mission. Soon afterward, such patrols ended. Michael Spak, a former Army JAG colonel now teaching at Chicago-Kent College of Law, says the exceptions made in the name of national security in recent decades have left Posse Comitatus a hollow shell. He says the law should be scrapped entirely. Any amendment to loosen Posse Comitatus would be strictly pro forma, he says, because as it's now construed, the statute has enough wiggle room for the government to use the military for domestic action as it sees fit. ``It's good for the law to tell the truth and for everybody to follow the law,'' he said. ``But is it necessary? No.''

2 1

patriotic trash
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

Some significant fraction of the cars in the States have (generally Chinese-made) flags fluttering on them. And since, well, stuff happens, some of these have broken and now you see flags on the ground by the side of the road. This is twisted because the flag is never supposed to touch the ground, etc., but we'll see lots of that as the cheap plastic flags disintegrate. [That wasn't a metaphor but it could be....] In fact you're supposed to burn weathered flags ---and of course, folks' reaction to burning the flag *prematurely* is how you distinguish freedom (eg of expression) lovers from poseurs. .... Curiouser and curiouser Down the rabbit hole Rabbits don't carry anthrax, do they?

1 0

Passive three dimensional track of non-cooperative targets through opportunistic use of global positioning system (GPS) and GLONASS signals
by mean-green＠hushmail.com 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

US Pat. 6,232,922 Passive three dimensional track of non-cooperative targets through opportunistic use of global positioning system (GPS) and GLONASS signals Abstract A method and apparatus for utilization of GPS, GLONASS or other existing RF signals is disclosed. These existing RF signals are scattered by targets, with a receiver of these scattered signals providing processing to extract three dimensional track of these objects. Angle-of-Arrival (AOA) information of a received signal may be used, but is not required. Modifications of standard GPS signal processing allows observables such as range-sum, range-difference, and bistatic Doppler frequency to be observed. These observables, when coupled with standard bistatic/multistatic location equations, provide unambiguous and even redundant information on target coordinates. The method/device employs a modified code (range)/carrier(Doppler) search routine for initial target search/acquisition, wherein a direct path signal is used as a reference from which chip delay and Doppler shift excursions are examined. In this manner, the range and Doppler components observed will correspond to [rang! e-sum-direct path] range, and true bistatic target Doppler irrespective of the satellite or receiver induced Doppler shifts.

3 2