February 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

KYU-5, KG-84, KY-54 encryption devices
by Aimee Farr 03 Mar '01

03 Mar '01

What are they? - Aimee

4 5

HR 726: Ban on Internet firearm trading..."obtain, dispose, offer to obtain or dispose"
by Aimee Farr 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

http://thomas.loc.gov HR 726 [Feb. 26] To ban the use of the Internet to obtain or dispose, or offer to obtain or dispose of, a firearm. Rep. Patsy Mink (D-HI) http://www.house.gov/mink/ -Aimee

3 3

Re: Microsoft Trial Judge [blah blah blah]
by George＠Orwellian.Org 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

"James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: # At 11:23 PM 2/27/2001 -0500, David Stultz wrote: # > Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" # > or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread? # # It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose # ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from # Nazi philosophers. Nonsense. This rule is alive and well in Usenet. -- Jim Chaote's Questionable Science For Kids, #285311 # # Hey kids, wanna see something cool??? Pick up # a roll of magnesium from the appropriate supply # store and set it on fire using a blue-flame # lighter or torch. And watch it burn! It has # a hypnotically bright white light, something # you can watch for hours on end.

2 1

FAQ? how to set up a cross-platform encrypted mailing list/forum
by Rachel Willmer 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

This might be a FAQ. Or it might just be a question with a really obvious answer that I can't see for looking. How can I set up a mailing list or online forum with encrypted traffic? The clients are varied platforms: Win98, WinNT, OpenBSD, FreeBSD. I thought about tweaking the listserver to send out encrypted mails. But that doesn't help the inbound traffic. I thought about using some online forum. But the only one I can find which looks to make any mention of the word security is Groove. Which is Windows only. I thought about setting up a VPN between the various mailservers. But we'd have to secure all the MX hosts to be sure, and some of them aren't adminstratively accessible by me. and anyway one of the potential users uses a public ISP, so um, help! is this a FAQ with no answer? or is this a question with an answer so obvious I'll blush when I'm told what it is... All suggestions welcome... Rachel

14 23

Re: [Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 01 Mar '01

01 Mar '01

It's all in the timing. If the censors are the last to judge, they self proclaim the right to punish or take corrective action. So justice is held in a pyramid scheme where those not fortunate or not able to be on top are by definition the only liable to be judged by terrestrial powers. The odd thing about this is judgments are punitive in nature, so those at the bottom slip further down; distancing the judging party from the judged. Kind of a reinforcing cycle. Can you think of mechanisms to trigger this cycle Jim? Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> wrote: > > > On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote: > > > Your last paragraph is a little too complicated for me Jim, > > I'm interested in what you have to say but please break it > > down for me. > > Somebody does something. As a consequence another party is considered to > have contributed to the first persons act, without actually participating > in the act. > > So, if the first person is not fully responsible, why is the second > party fully responsible? How do you test this? > > If a party whose actions contribute is responsible for the consequences > then isn't the censor themselves, since they take an active role, also > responsible? > > Doesn't this put a party in the defence in the role of presecutor and > judge? That seems to be a considerable conflict of interest. > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a > smaller group must first understand it. > > "Stranger Suns" > George Zebrowski > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

2 1

Re: [Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

Your last paragraph is a little too complicated for me Jim, I'm interested in what you have to say but please break it down for me. Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> wrote: > > > On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote: > > > Relating how code can infringe on someone else's rights will > > be an abstract argument. > > Not at all, code itself can NEVER infringe anothers right, UNLESS it's > executed (acted upon). > > Speech in and of itself is powerful because of its two characteristics, > > - It's harmless and does nothing in and of itself. > > - It motivates peoples imagination to act. > > It is the second point that ALL regulation of speech, expression, press, > distribution, etc. exists for. > > Fundamentaly all government regulation of speech is nothing more than a > covert attempt to manage your consequent behaviour. It is not the speech > but what others may do with it. It is clear the person emitting the speech > has no control over the person receiving the speech. But we can't control > the second party until it's too late. So we try to control the first > party. Further, if we accept the premise that the first party is > responsible for the acts of the second party, then what of the unmentioned > parties acting on the first party? And if we claim the first party is > acting of their own free will then what character of the second party is > our litmus test? What aspect of the relationship between the first and second > parties is missing in the relationship between the first and unnamed > parties that relieves the unnamed parties of responsibility for the acts > of the first party? And isn't the regulation of PREVIOUS speech by such a > unnamed party also proof that the first party isn't acting of their own > free will? Isn't the fact that this unnamed party removed the potential > good from banned speech from the situation and thus itself participated in > the affront? And because they did so with forethought doesnt' this > compound their part? > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a > smaller group must first understand it. > > "Stranger Suns" > George Zebrowski > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

2 1

Do your part to support asset forfiture!
by atek3 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

I thought that would get your attention :) http://www.stealitback.com/ The police's page to auction off stolen goods. Some stolen from people by criminals, some stolen by the government from its citizens. god i hate forfiture, goto http://www.fear.org and learn more about this disgrace to the bill of rights. brent

1 0

disconnect (fwd)
by Jim Choate 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:36:14 -0500 From: steven moore <stevmoore(a)EarthLink.Net> Reply-To: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: CDR: disconnect somehow my e-mail address got linked to yours and I'm receiving dozens of (unwanted) messages daily addressed to your e-mail. Any idea how I can get disconnected from your address? (I'm a computer novice.)

1 0

Re: [RE: ]
by LUIS VILDOSOLA 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

The punishment has been justified but is unjust, it lacks cognitive coherence. For all the good deeds taxes are justified to exist, they are not sustained under close scrutiny; not the scrutiny under which a court decides over physical restraint of a "tax evader". All things being equal, these people are slaves of a new master, a government with the spirit of a ghost. "B.Chandler" <b.chandler(a)gte.net> wrote: > > yes quatloos, injustices occur every day. > > answer this, what class of citizens existed before the 14th amendment? > was every congressman and every president that served prior to the 14th > amendment frauds? NO . > Before the 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States" did NOT exist. > > Again, were every congressman and every president that served prior to the > 14th > amendment frauds? > > > > Quatloos Wrote: > > > California Couple Sentenced for Helping Clients Evade Taxes > > February 23, 2001 > > By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON > > A California couple who helped their clients evade at least $13.8 > million in federal income taxes were sentenced to long prison terms > yesterday, sentences the judge extended after they said that the > tax laws were invalid and did not apply to them. > > The couple, Dorothy and George Henderson of Roseville, Calif., > sold trusts through which, customers were told, they could put > their money beyond the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. The > couple kept 5 percent of the deposits. > > Mrs. Henderson, 56, was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison > and Mr. Henderson, 59, was sentenced to six and a half years by > Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. of United States District Court in > Sacramento. > > The Hendersons did not testify at their trials, but at a > sentencing hearing yesterday they told Judge Burrell that the > I.R.S. had no authority over them and that they would pursue claims > against the government. > > They also said they were exempt from tax under Section 861 of the > Internal Revenue Code, contending that the statute excludes most > Americans from income taxes. > > Donald Dorfman, Mrs. Henderson's lawyer, said that he tried to > show his client that she had misread the law and that rather than > exempting anyone from taxes it extended the reach of American tax > law to income from foreign sources. > > "She wouldn't listen," Mr. Dorfman said. "She insisted on speaking > and telling the judge about the 861 position and how as a sovereign > citizen of California the federal courts had no jurisdiction and > all sorts of gibberish." > > Mr. Dorfman said the speech caused the judge to add five months to > Mrs. Henderson's sentence beyond prosecutors' request. > > The judge gave Mr. Henderson an extra eight months. > > The 861 > position is being advocated by a small but growing number of > business owners and others who, calling themselves the tax honesty > movement, say that the government operates the I.R.S. illegally. > These business owners have boasted in ads in USA Today and on the > Internet that they do not pay taxes and say the I.R.S. has not > acted against them. They cite that as proof that the tax laws are a > hoax. > > The case against the Hendersons began several years ago and grew > out of another case in which four other Californians, including a > lawyer, were convicted and are now in prison. ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

1 0

Re: American Bar Association - 1 click patents
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 28 Feb '01

28 Feb '01

> > At 2:08 PM -0500 2/28/01, Adam Shostack wrote: > >So, this web page doesn't work without javascript. I find that > >somewhat ironic, because you'd think that the ABA would be aware of > >the Americans With Disabilities act, which requires a reasonable > >accomodation; in this case that accomodation would be one less line of > >html (the meta-equiv refresh line) > > The ADA does not require writers, whether lawyers or novelists or > whatever, to write their material in ways that the blind can read, > that retarded persons can understand, or that the Java-less can > process. > > (Though I admit that many of these rent-seeking vipers would of > course _like_ the ADA to be extended to cover such things, if only to > increase the rent they can collect in thousands of lawsuits.) > > > --Tim May > Gotta get that animal analogy stuff right. A viper is an honest to goodness, fend for yourself, not on the dole, tooth and nail predator. Perfectly respectable by any reasonable standard. The rent-seekers are more accurately portrayed as something from a list of parasites : louse tick flea tapeworm roundworm bilharzia mosquito deerfly botfly giardia. Some of 'em have a pretty ghastly effect on the host - imaging growing grubs under your skin or having your sphincter muscles eaten away permanently from the inside. Yuk! http://www.techlawjournal.com/censor/20000210.htm While I agree in principle that those with disabilities should be able to participate in everything that society has to offer it seems inherently dangerous to have the government mandate how this issue will be addressed. I don't want to see paved roads into great wilderness areas and I don't think an old building that doesn't meet modern accessibility requirements should become a target for multimillion dollar lawsuits. I don't know how to solve this thing and neither do those who wrote the ADA. Mike

1 0