September 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Democracy is our enemy
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

At 04:58 PM 9/24/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: On Monday, September 24, 2001, at 03:08 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote: >>I'm tired of hearing my fellow Americans referred to as cowards, weaklings, sheep, ignorant, easily mislead - this is a profoundly undemocratic sentiment, the same kind of crap spewed by totalitarian and authoritarian types from the far left and the far right as justification for abandonment of the democratic process and the use of force to impose their ideology on the rest of us. >We are not for "democracy." Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. We are not a democracy, but a repubic (pun intended). The primary responsibility of our elected officials is to protect the minorities from the majority and to preserve protect and defend the constitution. Many representatives clearly show they have at best a poor understanding of the Constitution, the words and intentions of the framers. Some even show disdain for it. How many Congressmen do you think ever read Thomas Paine's works? >Crypto anarchy is about undermining democracy, causing the house of cards to collapse. >>I refuse to give up on our way of life, my fellow citizens, or to write off my government as completely and irredemably lost. >You are welcome to "refuse to give up on our way of life." Many others over the centuries have similarly refused to give up on royalism...I hear there are even clubs where people pretend to be various archdukes and viscounts, and even fan clubs for the grandchildren of royals deposed 75 years ago. >Maybe there will be fan clubs for "democracy supporters." Maybe they will even launch little wars agains the royalists. >Democracy will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history. I hope representative government is not.

1 0

500 lb laser guided respect for your culture
by Subcommander Bob 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

At 09:46 PM 9/22/01 -0700, pseudolicious wrote: >GOVERNMENT TRIPPING OVER RELIGIOUS RHETORIC=BY SARAH LUBMAN >SJMercury News >For the second time in less than a week, the U.S. government had damage control to do because of its religion-infused rhetoric. The Pentagon on Thursday backed away from the code name for its anti-terrorist offensive, ``Operation Infinite Justice,'' for fear of offending Muslims. Heh, right now you could sell a lot of those (since withdrawn) Nikes with Allah's name accidentally in the tread. At least in the Homeland (tm) they'd sell. .... There's hardly enough lube-groove on a .223 round to hold enough pig-grease to make a difference... Maybe SpecOps gets hollowpoints...

1 0

Internment Camps for Political Dissidents
by Eric Cordian 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

I wonder how many people on this list would qualify as "sympathetic to terrorist causes," a very vague phrase which could mean almost anything. >From www.newsday.com ----- By MARC HUMBERT Associated Press Writer September 24, 2001 ALBANY, N.Y. -- One third of New Yorkers favor establishing internment camps for "individuals who authorities identify as being sympathetic to terrorist causes," according to a poll from the Siena College Research Institute. ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

3 2

Re: FC: Sen. Hollings plans to introduce DMCA sequel: The SSSCA
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

>>----- Forwarded Message ----- >> >From: Someone >> >> >> >>Working to keep our neighbors awake and informed is our best hope, in my >> >>view - that is the only way democracy will ever work. >> > >> >Historically this has often failed (e.g., the lack of outcry against >>Japanese internment camps). Neighboors are willing to sell their liberty >>and their neighbors at the drop of a hat if someone in government promises >>them greater security, even though these same liars failed them time and >>time again. >> > >> >Since the New Deal Americans and corporations have become increasingly >>reliant on government to provide for them, shield them from their own poor >>judgement and folly and transfer the responsibility to the rest of us. >>(Citizens of a like mind should structure upcoming tax filings to deduct >>Congress' largess to the airlines and others). We cannot depend on these >>cowards and weaklings. >> > >> >You'll notice that no Declaration of War was formally given. Even so >>Congress has moved to curtail civil liberties. From my perspective both >>life and liberty are equally dear. Those that attempt to take either I >>will treat the same. >> > >> >Its time to water the tree... > >I'm tired of hearing my fellow Americans referred to as cowards, weaklings, >sheep, ignorant, easily mislead - this is a profoundly undemocratic >sentiment, the same kind of crap spewed by totalitarian and authoritarian >types from the far left and the far right as justification for abandonment >of the democratic process and the use of force to impose their ideology on >the rest of us. > >It is the cry of someone unwilling to do the hard work of actually speaking >to their fellow and convincing them of the rightness of the cause being >professed; the frustrated rant of someone who is convinced he or she has >"The Truth" on their side - the same opinion shared by Timothy McVeigh, Osma >Bin Ladin, and folks of a similar ilk. I wish I had a penny for every such conversation regarding this topic I've had. > >I won't deny that I think our government is unduly influenced by factions >(from certain labor unions to untold numbers of corporations) with financial >and other interests at stake, but my answer is to become a more dedicated >citizen, to work harder to educate my fellow citizens and elected >representatives about what I think is right and just. I wish I shared your hopeful attitude. Earlier in our country's history, when the public educational system was functioning a bit better, the average citizen had a broader perspective and a firsthand knowledge of the Constitution. Since the '60s the public system has all but failed subsequent generations leaving most ignorant and uninterested about how we got to where we are today, and easily propaganized. I've spent a considerable amount of time with those younger than 30 and its freightening how few (except for the radicals and a few lawyers) have ever read the founder's documents. Democracy only works when a citizenry is well informed. So what do you do now that you've got a generation of rubes? The political structure has almost precluded representation by those with minority views. The Republicrats are little more than two underworld gangs fighting over turf (us and our taxes) while we only get to flip a coin to determine who sticks it to us. How do you convince them that their leaders have been increasingly operating outside the intentions of the framers by ignoring and "re-interpreting" the Constitution to accomodate popular political sentement or accomodate powerful forces often with hidden agendas? > >I encourage everyone to read this book - it says more about the strengths >and weaknesses of this country (and more importantly, the "cowards" and >"weaklings" who make it work) than anything I've ever read. It is written by >an Arab-American and a profound patriot, someone whose life represents the >American dream in all it's glory and gore. > >America, More Than a Country >by Salom Rizk Thanks, I'll look into it. I'd like to return the favor, Thomas. I suggest reading "The Sovereign Individual : Mastering the Transition to the Information Age." http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684832720/o/qid%3D970264502/sr%3D2-… In The Sovereign Individual, Davidson and Rees-Mogg explore the greatest economic and political transition in centuries -- the shift from an industrial to an information-based society. Although somewhat repetitve, they raise some compelling arguments about what techo-geo-political factors have shaped governemnt and society and what current and anticipated factors will shape it yet again. Specifically that "the economic return on violence," which is mainly tied to technology, is the most important long term influence on geopolitics. Their prediction is that nation states will be reduced significantly in global influence by the combination of the Internet (especially anonymous digital money) and the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons in the hands of smaller nation states, idiological groups and even individuals. Their premise is that all governments have an implicit or explicit covenant that if citizens agree to be taxed and bound by its laws, they will protect them from harm (both foreign and domestic). If these nations cannot deliver on this basic promise, and the authors they say that's not likely without police state authority, then many wealthier individuals (esp. those who's income and assets are Internet-based and cannot be easily liened) will become state-less and go to wherever they feel safe and free. The masses will left to fight over the crumbs.

1 0

Re: Selected quotes from Keyser-Soze
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

Although I'm not into anthropomorphics I'd guess my sign would be either mongoose (fast and perisistent and loves to kill snakes) or weasel (agile, sly, cunning and sneaky and loves to kill rats)

3 2

[RANT] Conservative Poll hard against National ID
by attila! 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

1 0

RE: Expectation of privacy in public?
by Aimee Farr 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

Under the California statute, a conversation in which the parties have no expectation that the discussion would not be disclosed to others is not confidential. Cal. Penal Code. Sect.632(a). "Confidentiality" has been construed in California to mean "a reasonable expectation that the content of the communication has been entrusted privately to the listener." Deteresa v. American Braodcasting Co. 121 F.3d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1997, cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1840 (1998). Oral Communication under Title I (of "Title III" or the ECPA) incorporates the Katz test. The Katz test is two-pronged: (1) the person challenging must exhibit an expectation of privacy [subjective] and (2) that person must also be justified in that expectation [objective]. If both prongs are not met, the conversation is not protected under the constitution against warrantless surveillance. Senate Report 1097: neither the speakers intention to talk in confidence nor the location of where the conversation happened controls the determination of whether or not he reasonably expected he could not or would not be overheard. The factors that might be considered in regard to the first prong are: precautions taken, content, purpose, etc. Therefore, words a person knowingly "puts to the public," possibly even in your home, can be outside of the Fourth Amendment and Title III. However, it's a very contextual determination. Often, the courts use the rationale that because you have no reason to believe your conversation is not being overheard, you have no reason to believe you are not being recorded. See In re Johen Doe Trader No. One, 894 F.2d 240, 243 (7th Cir. 1990)(recording on floor of commodities exchange). They could also make the analogy to a visitor of a bugged house, such as United States v. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2000). However, the mere fact that the conversation is on government premises does not affect an expectation of privacy. United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046, 1052 (5th Cir. 1979)....and a bunch more after that. Blah, blah, more than you wanted to know. ~Aimee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On > Behalf Of Trei, Peter > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:25 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com > Subject: RE: Expectation of privacy in public? > > > > Anonymous[SMTP:nobody@remailer.privacy.at] > > > > > > For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there... > > > > In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an > > article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers. > > > > <quote> > > Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that > > they were well aware of the policy and approved it. "There are no > > expectations of privacy in public," he said. Ballard asserted that the > > policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. > > When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy > > post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being > > recorded, he said, "This policy does not require signs." > > </quote> > > > > Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to > the person > > next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a > reasonable expection > > of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm > > right or wrong? > > > > Legal or not, I'm also curious to see what the EFF has to say about this > > wonderful incarnation of Big Brother. > > > > http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/35/51/cult.html > > > MUNI is breaking the law. > http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ > Peter Trei > ---------------------------

1 0

Portal for Building Machinery
by BMC 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

1 0

ANWR
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

CDR: Re: Intercepts foretold of 'big attack' -- The Washington Times John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote : >Bill Gertz has received an extraordinary number of leaked >documents. Most of those occurred during the Clinton era >when national security mongerers opposed to Clinton's >policies leaked top secret stuff. Those kinds of leaks seemed >to have diminished now that those anti-Dems are in >power again. They continue to be opposed to carry overs >from the Clinton team like Tenet and others. There could >be more leaks or worse crimes against humanity to help >get rid of those remnants. > >However, ex-members of Clinton's administration are >now leaking natsec stuff as Bush's team increases >bashing of the Dem's policies, and counterterrorism claims >are sure to get leaked left and right once the pol's dipshit >backslapping and airkissing vanish. > >Congressional hearings on who knew what and when about >the 911 attacks may not be in the offing any time soon, but >they are needed to determine which war mongerers were >most in cahoots with their good buddy jihadists to foster >mineral exploitation in the target region and as a sideline >boost the need for strategic Alaskan oil. > What Bush and cronies want to do in ANWR is entirely unrelated to strategy - they want the right to go make money by drilling on public lands. If it goes through in the near future watch how much the government spends on roads and other support to get the drillers in there and how much is payed in return by the oil companies. Long-term energy strategy is more important than corporate greed. The most strategic thing to do with Alaskan oil would be to leave it right where it is. Dipping in to the reserves unnecessarily is moronic. NB : I'm not opposed to drilling Alaskan oil - after Kuwait runs dry... Mike

3 3

RE: FC: Oracle's Larry Ellison urges national ID card for America ns
by Jonathan Wienke 25 Sep '01

25 Sep '01

They can tattoo it right next to the "Exit Only" on my butt cheeks... -----Original Message----- From: Bill Stewart [mailto:bill.stewart@pobox.com] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:06 AM To: politech(a)politechbot.com; cypherpunks(a)lne.com Subject: Re: FC: Oracle's Larry Ellison urges national ID card for Americans I hate to trigger Godwin's Law so soon (though somebody else already did it), but are there any Bay Area tattoo shops that want to volunteer to help with the National ID numbers?

1 0