December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Remailer Pricing
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:02 PM 11/14/1996, Mullen Patrick wrote: >Peter Hendrickson switched the transistors to say: >> E-cash, the product licensed by Digicash, offers full payee anonymity and >> would be an ideal candidate. > Oops. I forgot. :-) I guess this idea would work. But, there would be a > very large price for anonymity - two mailers holding their hands out for a > piece of the pie. > Well, I must admit you seem to have this idea pretty well thought out, and > it just may work. The hardest part of the plan would probably be gaining > acceptance. True, everyone loves getting a check, especially if all they > had to do was open and close email to have it register as being read, but > the hard part is getting people to accept having to pay to send someone a > message. Of course, there's the argument that currently we pay for stamps... > :-) It looks like I wasn't perfectly clear again. Sorry about that. The user does not tell anybody whether or not the mail has been read. In fact, it's nobody's business but their own. This is the advertiser's problem, and I don't really care whether they solve it. In fact, the user does not have to put the remailer on the accept list. He or she just has to tell the remailer operator that they would like to receive a dollar (or whatever) if the remailer operator sends them any mail. Perhaps we've been thinking about anonymous mail the wrong way. Is it like the U.S. Post Office where you have to physically go someplace, buy a stamp, physically write your message, put it in a physical envelope, carry it to a box someplace, and then wait (maybe four days) for it to arrive, all for "only" 32 cents? Or is it more like Federal Express where you pay 20 bucks and it arrives the next day, for sure, every time? Earlier today somebody sent a message about his scary former employers and (apparently) how they just kill people. Would that person pay, say, $5 to have the message delivered reliably and very anonymously? My judgement is that it would be worth every penny, and probably more. Right now the remailer network is a mess. There just aren't that many remailers operating in a timely and reliable manner. I am not knocking the remailer operators for this, it's just clear that "free" doesn't make it worth their while to keep the remailers operating perfectly at all times. It is especially important that anonymous mail be delivered in a timely and reliable manner because you probably will not have a good way to verify that it arrived. And reliability is absolutely required if you are chaining remailers because errors multiply. The top five remailers in Raph's latest report had these reliabilities: 99.77%, 99.28%, 99.23%, 99.18%, and 98.78%. If you chain those remailers, your failure rate is 3.71%, which is just too high. And, the long delays in sending messages through the remailers make it hard for people to get up and running because it takes hours to determine whether it worked, if it worked at all. Furthermore, many remailers don't use 2048-bit keys. Why not? Because they don't want to spend money on the cycles. That's okay with me - it's charity. But, if I pay a dollar for a remailer, I can expect to be able to use a very strong key. A good pricing strategy for remailers would be to charge, say, $1 for instant delivery, $.50 for 30 minute delivery, etc. To generate interest, 4 hour delays could be imposed for free remailing, if the resources are available. Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

2 1

RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson switched the transistors to say: >> While I hope this plan won't ever be necessary, at least not on such a >> global scale, the application of such techniques toward a mailing list >> sounds decent. >This may sound like a quibble, but it really isn't: I am not talking about >a global scale at all. A very small group of people can make use of >this technology successfully. It doesn't matter whether everybody in >the world uses it or just people who are tired of spam - it still works. Yeah, I knew I used a bad choice of words. I meant global as in "all- encompassing" rather than the geographical definition. >However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps >everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam. How, then, do we >allow anonymous postings to come through? Individual people on the list >can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is >appropriate. They could even charge a fee for doing it. That's easy to >do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them. >> Which brings up another topic: How would an anonymous remailer operate? >> It's hard to eliminate an audit trail when there is some monetary tie back >> to you, whether it be credit card, ecash (assuming they never quite figure >> out anonymizing it), ... >I assumed untraceable cash transactions for small amounts were available. >E-cash, the product licensed by Digicash, offers full payee anonymity and >would be an ideal candidate. Oops. I forgot. :-) I guess this idea would work. But, there would be a very large price for anonymity - two mailers holding their hands out for a piece of the pie. Well, I must admit you seem to have this idea pretty well thought out, and it just may work. The hardest part of the plan would probably be gaining acceptance. True, everyone loves getting a check, especially if all they had to do was open and close email to have it register as being read, but the hard part is getting people to accept having to pay to send someone a message. Of course, there's the argument that currently we pay for stamps... :-) PM >Peter Hendrickson >ph(a)netcom.com ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;14 Nov 1996 17:46:22 -0400 Received: from netcom18.netcom.com by delphi.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:42:05 GMT Received: from [192.0.2.1] (ph(a)netcom3.netcom.com [192.100.81.103]) by netcom18.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id OAA05098; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:40:19 -0800 X-Sender: ph(a)netcom15.netcom.com Message-Id: <v02140b05aeb13a70acf4(a)[192.0.2.1]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:40:29 -0800 To: "Mullen Patrick" <Mullen.Patrick(a)mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com> From: ph(a)netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson) Subject: RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions Cc: "Cypherpunks" <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote: >> Mark >> - -- >> finger -l for PGP key >> PGP encrypted mail prefered. To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote: >Why? Are you a criminal? >What are you hiding behind your PGP? Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that.

3 2

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Declan McCullagh wrote: > > The mere fact that a privately-owned discussion group becomes popular > does not mean that it becomes a public forum. This is true. On the other hand, privately-owned public forums do exist. Chartered FreeNets, for example, and the facilities of private Universities like Carnegie Mellon. There may be a fine line somewhere, but I don't believe we need to draw it, because what is at issue here is the character of the moderator, not the legality of his action. We're just spinning wheels here talking in the abstract. I actually agree with Vulis's reasoning -- you need to look at the facts of the case in order to determine whether an act of censorship, or heckler control, or editing, or whatever, was proper. But apply that reasoning to Vulis's case, and you conclude that he's completely in the wrong, by any standard. > Say I start a poetry mailing list to discuss Blake's writings. I have > three people on it. One becomes obnoxious and emailbombs the list > since he disagrees with my interpretation of "A Memorable Fancy." Do I > have the right to kick him off? Clearly. And if your statement of the facts is correct, then you would be right in exercising your right. If there is more to the story, though, or if your story is wrong... well, then you still have the right to be a jerk, but you are, nonetheless, a jerk. In the cypherpunks case, though, the only jerk here is Vulis. It is worthless and IMO dangerous to prove that by arguing from first principles. The "Freedom Knight" kooks are correct in pointing out that every "philosophical" argument you've made can be and has been misused. Try a little empirical evidence; there is plenty to go around. "Truth is far more fragile than fiction... reason alone cannot protect it." Proof is syntactic; truth is semantic. > How is this different from a private poetry reading in my home? It differs in one small but important way: it all happens in the digital domain, so it can all be archived in its entirety. It is more difficult to lie about what happens online (but not impossible, as Vulis and company demonstrate). In an online forum, you have access to *all* the empirical evidence. There's no reason to rely on pure reason. So enough already with the hypothetical cases. You've got a specific case of your own that, oddly, you still haven't mentioned. - -rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMovDK5NcNyVVy0jxAQGjIAH8DTYuUzkwt7+9i4RNCPkspNBEj7MBoH0Z CluHlmULFdamQ1HPDAXRct/DoqPzsXR+IzlMOr0y4bPFtMq1y+kEZw== =TA0F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Media seekers, reputation and banishment
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems like the Freedom-Knights are seeking a little publicity? Perhaps an interview in Wired? A column in the WaPo? A spot on www.TV.com? Are these the same folks who gather around at fires and crime scenes trying to get into the camera? "Hi Mom! We're on CP now! Look at me!" bwahahhhaha I find the aga/hayes posts amusing. It's amazing at how people have refined their skills at rhetoric, debate and insults. The poisoned pen gets much practice. So the aga/hayes posts attempt to extract reputation from Gilmore and Declan. It is interesting to see how attacts on reputation are futile as reputation is built up (or spent) gradually. Pointing a finger and shouting "You are stoopid!" is obviously ineffective at damaging any credibility other than that of the person holding the finger. Remove the insults and aga and Hayes offer little in the way of compelling arguements. Maybe Gilmore made a mistake in removing DV from CP. Perhaps it is a contradiction of some ideal of open dialog and free speech. DV seems to have unlimitted energy for insults, rants, and blather, so removing him directly (with the actual effect of simply making it less convienent for him or her to post) was a practical move not a philosophical move. A practical move to assert the will of the community. A community offers few punishments for asocial behavior. Killfiles are partly effective. But the strongest punishment is banishment. The issue is not "is banishing unruly louts from the discussion censorship" as censorship is a state of being threatened with loss of liberty for what one says. The issue is "do we individually banish asocial louts or collectively?" and of course how do we decide who to banish. All of this is certainly easier when done individually yet it is often prudent and effective to have someone take action when they are in a position to do be effective. Gilmore acted properly in my opinion. And DV remains in my killfile. diGriz

1 0

Cryptoanarchy in the field
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:44 AM 11/13/1996, Adam Back wrote: >>What we need is an experiment. Let's pick a country with a near >>police state and design a system so that people in that country >>can freely and securely communicate with each other and the outside >>world with minimal chance of arrest. Once the system is available, >>we can see if it succeeds in the field. I'll leave others to >>suggest the target. > >I would suggest starting with remailers, rather than interactive >traffic such as web traffic would be the easier target. Might even >present a positive spin in the press for anonymity and remailers for a >change. Positive publicity? How about Iraq? What kind of computer equipment does the Army have? What happens when the Iraqi Army suddenly becomes able to conspire? What if they were provided only with authentication of anonymous identities. How much could they do with "underground newspapers" that traveled on sneaker net? >So what good stego techniques are there for text. Do singaporeans use >a non ascii character set? (As the Chinese use things like Big5 >encoding). Anyone know of any features of the character set that >Singaporeans use which could be used for a subliminal channel? How many people in Singapore speak English? >Sure, if you keep cypherpunks list going even after crypto discussions >have been outlawed, you can keep discussions, and then the ammount of >ecash usage, and bandwidth may be more condusive to working out >anonymous payment systems. Pornography is a powerful motivator that need not involve money. The CIA used to trade porn for secrets during the Cold War. It seems low ranking Russian officers used it to reward obedient young soldiers who were not allowed to leave custody during their first two years of service.

2 1

The Conspiracy To Erect An Electronic Iron Curtain
by kb4vwa＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An Essay by L. R. Beam The internet, perhaps the last truly free means of information exchange in the Western World, may soon be choked by censorship and governmental controls. The circumscribing of the net may cause the death of what has become the first people-to-people exchange of ideas and information on a world wide basis. The forces behind this effort appear at first glance to be an unlikely coalition of conspirators, the CIA, some Jewish Religious groups, and various foreign governments. While this unholy alliance for censorship and control may seem unusual to some, politics makes the bed for these strange fellows. Indisputably, an international cabal of special interest groups both within and out of governments are working both openly and secretly to end the unregulated direct exchange of information between people. At stake is nothing less then the regaining of information control which the internet has shattered. Up for grabs is nothing more than the thinking and decision making abilities of informed men. Information has flowed from the top down for most of this century. Filtering of information by middle men from government, newspapers, radio, and then television has left most Americans depending upon Paul Harvey "for the rest of the story." Suddenly, almost without warning, the internet mushroomed into popularity connecting people all over the world together electronically and thereby threatening the power of those who disseminate information. If information is power, then the control of information is more power. The ideas of men are shaped by what they are told. For those who hope to erect a "New World Order" upon what they view as the antiquated ashes of free speech, control of the internet has jumped to near top of the list of "things to do." Governments and religious groups manipulate and control people by what they are allowed to know or not know. A decision has been made by the information brokers to end unregulated information exchange. Overnight the propaganda begins as these forces build their case for control and censorship. Quickly the nightly news lights up with horror stories of pornography on the net. Minutes later the same channel runs four hours of lurid programming bringing profanity, sex, sodomitizers and violence into the homes of viewers who were just shocked about porno on the net. Newspapers carrier feature length stories about children being lured from home over the computer telephone line, as if somehow typing a request to a child for sex over the phone line is more effective than saying it over the same phone line. The Anti-Defamation League issues a report saying that bomb plans can be found on the net along with anti- Jewish opinion. As if the same were not available in every public library in the United States. Politicians in Washington began to talk about "protecting the children." The same politicians who's destructive social policies and no win wars have destroyed more mothers sons than all the pagan empires of the past. Rabbi Abraham Cooper calls for censorship of politically incorrect ideas in Canada and asks for the establishment of an "internet police." A delegation from the Nazi- hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center in Vienna Austria, which has for the most part ran out of eighty year old former Nazis to hunt, takes on the new task of information censors and asks Italian Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, European Union president to back World Jewish Congress initiatives to stop those who disagree on the impact and importance of the holocaust from using the internet. Then in a joint effort of the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center letters are mailed to Internet service providers in early 1996 urging providers not to carry messages that contain non-complimentary opinion about Jews, which is quickly labeled as "cyberhate speech." This is but a glimpse of the public efforts of the information censors to unleash "info police" on the net. It is clear that those who have previously served as the middlemen of politically correct information are distraught at their having been taken out of the loop. Meanwhile, sources within the federal government, who wish to remain unnamed, reveal that there are considerable behind the scene efforts to bring the flow of information under government control. In the labyrinthine bunkers of the CIA in Arlington Virginia, a team of planners has begun discussion on how to control the net by establishing internet node servers throughout the system that will act as a "strainer" of unwanted electronic information flow (there are indications this process has begun now). The Army Security Agency (ASA), which has the worlds most sophisticated signals intelligence and electronic monitoring capabilities has began setting up clandestine servers to monitor traffic, catalog, classify, and achieve. >From the above sampling of events, it is clear that both government and pressure groups with sacred cows to defend have determined that uncontrolled information flow between people is a threat to their interests. The results of this statist thinking will lead to a "war on information" similar to the "war on drugs," curtailing free speech and informed opinion. Like the war on drugs the real objective will not be to save society but rather to control society. CYBER WARS are breaking out between the people and government over the flow of information. What is wanted by these would be internet thought police is nothing less then the right of government and religious (in this case Judaism) imprimatur on the transfer of electronic information: an electron iron curtain. Efforts at censorship by religious groups are not new to this continent. The Spanish Catholic church which saw nothing of value among the writings of Aztecs and Mayans ordered their books burned in contempt. Like them, Rabbi Abraham Cooper and the Anti-defamation League see nothing of value in the words of those who beg to disagree. Black robed priests yelled the smear words of the 16th century "Vile heretic!" and labeled non-catholics "pagan savages." Rabbi Cooper and his religious cohorts of the new inquisition cry "anti-Semitic" and label those who believe differently "hatemongers." The words have changed, but for those shouting them the objective is the same: eliminate the opposition, the opponent is never answered; he is discredited. Fear kept many silent who would have otherwise opposed the Catholic Inquisition. Fear of the rack and straps of being labeled anti-Semitic will keep many quite today. The call now for censorship by Rabbis is much like the pyres of Priests in the fifteenth century it is an electronic equivalent of book burning. The zealots willingness to accept only his personal vision of the world around him has led mankind down this same pernicious path before. Intolerance it is clear, is not solely a non- Jewish characteristic. A new inquisition has begun. This one will seek out the heretics of the internet for the stake. Each age it seems, has it's TORQUEMADA. A warning of what is to come: as the Federal Government, Anti-Defamation League, and the Central Intelligence Agency seek to squelch or control the net, look for senseless acts of random electronic violence. These acts of subterfuge will be committed by computer nerds at CIA and the ADL or their agent provocateurs and will appear to have been perpetrated by "white racists," "neo-nazis," "patriots," "extremist anti-government radicals," "hackers," or other identifiable dissidents of the right and left. The purpose of these incidents will be similar to those of a drive by shooting to terrorize people into submission. In this case consent is wanted for censorship rather than drug turf but the principal is the same: a political/religious gang wants control. Understand that establishment media, as the propaganda arm of the government, will on cue make the call for censorship of the net. Those who have the resources to employ the best politicians money can buy also own newspapers, radio and television networks, for all serve their design. That design being the control of people through the filtering of information and repressive laws. After investing billions of dollars in media/information empires and politicians, all geared to work in tangent keeping people under control, these modern day equivalents of the book burners of former ages will not willingly let unfettered information exchange hinder their efforts. With at least four federal agencies (FBI, CIA, FINCEN, and ASA) investing hundreds of millions in advanced computer systems designed solely to monitor and track people technological warfare between the people and government will be a major component of the rest of this century and perhaps longer. The new head of the CIA John Deutsch was hand picked by Bill Clinton and his backers to carry forward plans for a technological police state to rest upon the typical shoulders of bullet proof vests, black boots, and front doors shattering under their assault. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Edward G. Lansdale, CIA operative par excellence, personally recruited the new CIA director for his first Government job in the early 1960's at just 22. Deutsch became one of Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara's ('we never intended to win in Viet Nam') whiz kids in the Pentagon who would help to design the Vietnam War; a slaughterhouse for other kids not so fortuity as to have political connections. Deutsch has held political posts under Democratic administrations and advisory or academic positions during Republican administrations. Deutsch became part of the elite permanent government of the United States that is accountable to no one, and immune to the oversight process. The shell game of elections and political parties have no effect on their careers.. This select cadre move in and out of various Federal agencies and advisory positions, always on the public dole, never elected, spending their entire lives trying to control the affairs of others. Much like the secret CIA Air Base (Area 51) at Groom Lake in southeastern Nevada, there is an aureole of secrecy surrounding their lives and functions. Deutsch's grandfather was a diamond merchant who ran the Zionist Federation of Belgium and he is therefore expected to work closely with the ADL and other pro-censorship groups. President Clinton appointed Deutsch as Director Central Intelligence in May of 1995 at the moment when the bombing of the Federal kindergarten in Oklahoma had allowed his Administration to launch a maximum political/propaganda counter-offensive against the rapidly growing discontent with, and mistrust of the federal government. Black smoke, mutilated bodies, dying children, crying distraught mothers, created exactly the atmosphere the government needed to turn things around. John Deutsch is the man in charge of that effort for the government. Censorship is a word of many meanings. In a narrow sense it of course may refer to suppression of information, or ideas. In a broader sense however, it is the rape of the human mind: Taking away that which is needed to make fair, informed opinions about this life. The mental rapist of today is no different in his goals than the back ally pervert who by force assaults a defenseless woman, taking from someone else that which he has no right to. Both acts are the works of the most contemptible sorts of humankind, desperate men, fearful of the light of day. What is being called for by the online information censors is the equivalent to Bosnian ethnic cleansing' a sort of information cleansing of the internet. It seems ironic to many that the ADL which has made innumerable calls for "diversity" would spearhead these efforts at censorship. What is being called for by them, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Rabbi Cooper is the equivalent to Bosnian ethnic cleansing' a sort of information cleansing of the internet. Perhaps a new organizational motto of "Many Cultures, One Opinion" would be more in line with true ADL objectives. It is not just a little bit odd that the same people who fear firearms in the hands of the people fear information in the minds of people. The ADL supported the recent government ban on certain types of firearms just as it supports government action to censor the net. As firearms laws only disarm honest citizens who obey the laws, information bans only effect people who desire to think for themselves. One pundit has already quipped that "I'll give up my information when they pry my cold dead fingers from the keyboard." In closing the author would like to make two additional things clear. First, there are Jews who oppose censorship although to this point their voice is but a whisper compared to the intolerance of the Anti- Defamation League and Rabbi Cooper. Second, that writing about Jewish religious leaders and government spymasters operating in a collusive effort to erect an electron iron curtain to restrict freedom of speech and information does not make one anti-Semitic or anti-government. The truth is anti-Semitic. The government is erecting a police state. The author opposes both oppressive religious groups and repressive government. If speaking the truth and opposing tyranny makes one anti-Semitic and anti-government, then I am both...

3 2

Re: Conspiring to commit voodoo
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:57 PM 11/12/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >A friend of mine tells an interesting story. >On driving to a convenience store early in wee hours, he sees a man >splayed across the hood of a parked car, perhaps dead. Being the good >citizen he is he tracks down a police car and reports the incident. >Instead of investigating the "body," the police decide to pull him over >and write him $700 in tickets for various fictitous violations (all of >which were later thrown out). He, as would any reasonable >citizen, protested, not so much for the tickets, but for the >possibility that the prone man might need medical attention. >(The incident was not called in on the radio). He took the >tickets and remarked something to the effect of, "I can't >believe this is what one gets for trying to be a good citizen, >trying to get involved." Officer's response: "Yep. Next time >don't bother." Eventually, some 30 mintues later the police drive to the >location and revive what was a sleeping bum, take my friend to the station >and make him wake his wife to bail him out to the tune of $250 >Total cost: $300 in legal fees to fight the "violations." This story further confirms my lack of respect for Unicorn. While this story certainly teaches us to avoid contact with the police, it turns out that it ALSO shows that, ultimately, the current system is apparently set up to profit lawyers, police, judges, and other vermin. Those groups made out just fine as a consequence of the above incident: The cop(s) harassed a "safe" victim, rather than actually going out and doing their job. A lawyer got paid the money for, at best, merely ceasing the harassment the cops started. The judge made it all look "legal," although not proper, and could feel good about himself for (aside from collecting his paycheck) turning the victim loose. In short, the harassment wasn't UNDONE, it was merely STOPPED, for now. The cops had, in fact, succeeded in causing the victim to lose $300. Which, interestingly enough, was probably the point of the whole exercise. AP, on the other hand, would have fixed this problem, permanently. The cop would be dead, eventually if not immediately. The lawyer would be out of a job, as well as the judge. In practice, AP would have deterred all such abuse, which means that it would have succeeded where Unicorn's implicit recommendation ("get a lawyer") would have failed. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:14 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: > >>As for the "self-selected" issue: In almost all areas of human endeavor, >>things are (often? usually?) done by people who are "self-selected." I >>suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts >>cannot work. > >Oh I forgot to mention, last week we found you guilty of sedition, it >was a pity you were not present to put your case but maybe if you had >bothere to read the court roster you would have attended. You might be surprised to learn that this kind of thing doesn't bother me at all. To whatever extent such commonlaw courts act like loose cannons, they will primarily tend to do so against those who are most abusive of the public's perceived rights. Like a non-lethal version of AP, those people who are most abusive of the public (primarily current government employees and officeholders) will be named most often in commonlaw court proceedings. Eventually, they will begin to behave. >>1. Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years. >>The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility. > >Untrue, the US constitution replaced all previous constitutions. But commonlaw courts were not a product of previous constitutions. And the US constitution certainly didn't "replace all previous constitutions": state constitutions were "replaced." The only document the Federal constitution arguably "replaced" was the Articles of the Confederation. > Thats >what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts >were extinguished. Ah! So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh? Well, if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished." >>2. The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the >>FEDERAL portion of government. > >It also includes a supremacy cluase and a "due process" clause. The >due process clause means amongst other things that noone can be subjected >to proceedings that are not authorised under the constitution. Anyone in state court are "subjected to proceedings that are not authorized under the [Federal] constitution." Clearly, state courts operated before the Federal Constitution existed. And the "due process clause" may simply apply to the Federal government, not necessarily all individuals or the organizations they form. >>3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it >>references state Constitutions at all. > >There is no logical reason why it should, if a state exists it has a process >of government, a boundary to its authority and performs legislative, >excutive and judicial functions. The explicit recognition of the states >was necessary since otherwise the supremacy clause would claim to extinguish >their rights. There's a big inconsistency with what you just said. It was the representatives of the STATES which WROTE the US Constitution. Their ratification was _necessary_ to approve that document. If states were not recognized, nor their representatives, they would have been unable to ratify the Federal constitution. It would be, therefore, totally illogical to believe that the product of their writing could somehow "extinguish" the rights of the citizens, let alone the states. You're obviously confused. >The authority of the states to make law is explicitly >stated. Whatever it said, it was not necessary to have said it. The 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that any power not explicitly granted the Feds was reserved to the states or the people. >>You should have said, SOME courts. Not "the courts," implying ALL the >>courts. Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my >>recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter >>local courts. > >It recognises the states, and thus their constitutions. If you can find >a state which omitted a supremacy clause from its constitution then you >might have a point. > > >As a practical matter however the immediate effect of claiming to issue >proceedings under "common law courts" is from now on almost certain to >be criminal and civil proceedings followed by long jail sentences. Oh, really? It certainly isn't "criminal." At most, you might try to claim that it is legally irrelevant. After all, if commonlaw courts don't really exist, then nothing they do has legal weight, and thus it's a legal nullity. But your commentary seems to indicate that no, what commonlaw courts do is not only real and significant, it's also going to be called "criminal." In other words, it's a threat to the existing legal monopoly. >While Jim Bell can pick nits and pretend that he is a lawyer the people >recognised as lawyers in our society act in a different matter. All of whom are trained to recognize the existing legal monopoly. >It is >an empirical fact that those convicted in federal and state courts >go to jail, those convicted in "common law kangeroo courts do not". In >fact the only people who do are the judges, jurors and other >instigators. Of what relevance is this? Sending a person to jail is only one of many ways a court can exercise its power. >It is an empirical fact that the authority of "common law" courts >is not recognised by society. "Society"? I think you mean "the people who believe they are in charge." The "thuggerati" would be one way to identify them. The vast majority of the population of the US are simply unaware of commonlaw courts. In fact, it's quite possible that the vast majority of the population can't quote even a single law verbatim. The average person knows nothing of the history of commonlaw courts, and therefore what he "recognizes" is unlikely to include them >They can be dealt with easily enough, >the intended victim need only apply to a real court for an injuction >prohibiting proceedings, What "proceedings"? You just said that commonlaw courts do not exist, and that their actions are legally irrelevant. Why should an "intended victim" NEED to "apply to a real [sic] court for an injunction"? An "injunction" is generally obtained to prevent somebody from doing something that he'd otherwise have the power (and, often, the right) to do absent the injunction. >turn up to the "court" to serve the injunction >and if people insist on proceeding apply to the real court for >enforcement of the original order since anyone participating in the >"common law court" would then be in contempt. They would only be "in contempt" if their actions were legally relevant, which you have already denied. Your problem is obvious: You're desperate, and you can't promote a consistent argument. I, far more honestly, started by pointing out the fact that commonlaw courts are but one type of court, and they were in competition with equity courts in England for centuries. It's a power stuggle, quite analogous to the free market, and if anything their long absense will only make the competition keener. Naturally, the opponents of commonlaw courts (and, "opponents" are exactly what they are; they are biased on one side of the issue) want to deny past reality as well as prevent the resurgence of those courts. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Q.E.D |= Montgolfiering + Inbongis + Fermented Pear Juice
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Since the IPG algorithm is impregnable, obviously no > individual, or collection of individuals, from said > Universities, the Cypherpunks, or the Coderpunks has been > able to crack the system. Of course, this inability to do the > impossible applies not only to the present but for all time, > for all eternity." Look, do you seriously think that university researchers, professors and data security consultants have nothing better to do with their time than look at your pathetic collection of cryptographic stocking fillers. I thought you had finally gone away when I saw no posts from you for about a week. I am depressed beyond belief to see you have returned to interrupt the flow of discussion.... Leave and never return... I truly have never hear anyone speak as much bollocks as you in my entire life, even those who have studied the art for many years... Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

4 3

infowar Digest for 14 Nov 1996
by list 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

infowar Digest for 14 Nov 1996 Topics covered in this issue include: 1: Flight Information Resource by Betty(a)infowar.com 2: Flight Information Resource by Betty(a)infowar.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Message:0001 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Subject: Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 We thank our sponsors: Internet Security Solutions New Dimensions International - Security Training Secure Computing Corporation HOMECOM Communications National Computer Security Association OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc. __________________________________________________ Infowar(a)infowar.com is brought to you in the the interest of an open,= unclassified exchange of information and ideas as a means for advancement= of Information Warfare related issues. Topics of discussion for this list= include: Infowar, Electronic Civil Defense, Hacking, Defensive Techniques,= Policy, Non-Lethals, Psyops, Chemical Warfare Agents and WMD.=20 As the list expands we will adapt to the needs and desires of our= subscribers.=20 __________________________________________________________ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: winn(a)infowar.com Subject: MCTL Process Infowar.com is proud to have been given permission to publish the=20 latest Military Critical Technologies List - Part I: Weapons Systems=20 Technologies.=20 THE MCTL Process is the systemic ongoing assessment and analyses of= technologies to determine which technologies are Militarily Critical and= therefore should have additional controlsplaced on them or made subject to= export control.=20 This document is the first of three parts. Part two: Weapons of Mass=20 Production and Part three: Critical Developing Technologies are in= development=20 and will be published when completed and made available to us. Don't miss= =20 reading this! Download Acrobat as the file is in .pdf format. (acrobat= readers are free) This file will be posted the week of November 17 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Betty(a)infowar.com From: "Eric L. Nelson, M.A." <enelson(a)nosc.mil> Subject: G-TWO RECRUITMENT FORM Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com Please use this ammended form to inform your DOD intel and CI colleagues about g-two. Please discard previous editions. Thanks, EL Nelson moderator Get The Word Out (G-TWO) is designed to provide direct assistance=20 to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence teams by providing=20 open-source intelligence and news summaries pertinent to DOD=20 interests. Topics include: Political: Politics of intelligence. Political history of hotspots/groups/personalities. Information: WWW locations of intelligence usefulness with brief summaries. Lists, databases, and archives accessible via the internet. Resource sharing. NBC-M (nuclear, biological, chemical & medical): Biochem threat analysis/events (outbreaks). Medical technology and issues related to DOD missions/personnel. Tracking the development of NBC capabilities by country/group. Terrorism: Threat/threat mindsets/tactical intent. Issues related to security and threat issues. International Crime. New developments in terrorism. New technology/weapons systems with CT application. Info. on capability of Special Teams/personnel. Military/Intel Agencies: Force protection. OPSEC. Military plans/policies. =20 Reports on terrorism/counter-terrorism activities. Data on military forces and capabilities (order of battle). Analysis: More analysis by SME's (subject matter experts). Emerging threat analysis. EOD/chemical analysis. Group profies (themes, objectives, etc.) Who are these people? Cultural profiles and key info/customs to know. Technology & Industrial: Hacking/Infowar. Technology/precursor tracking, what is being procured by others. Industrial/technical intelligence on foreign countries-=20 what are they doing? Other: Central/South American, and Caribbean information. =20 Psychological profiles/cultural profiles of groups/personalities. Deception. Stateless Warfare Issues (gangs, 4th generation warfare). State department info. =20 Washington Early Bird news summaries. =20 World hot spot info. Information warfare. Daily news articles on terrorism and related issues State Department country studies State Department terrorist groups/personalities files Emergency News Network (ENN) updates Intelligent Concepts Daily News Summaries Special support tasking News flashes More to be added soon! MEMBERSHIP: Limited to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence personnel, (active, reserve, or retired). Non-DOD intel/CI applicants may request a waiver by demonstrating a need for=20 inclusion, (such as law enforcement intelligence, FBI, etc.) To apply for membership answer the following questions and email to Eric Nelson at: =20 enelson(a)rohan.sdsu.edu <send the following> NAME/RANK: MILITARY UNIT/ORG: JOB TITLE: EMAIL ADDRESS: REG/RES/RET? NAME OF PERSON WHO REFERRED YOU (MANDATORY): <clip here and send> ------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Robert A. Walton" <waltonr(a)meade-emh2.army.mil>=20 Subject: DC Area Infowar Event Cc: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:04:22 +0000 You may wish to post the following notice. The Maryland chapter of Armed Forces Communications and Electronics=20 Association will have a luncheon meeting at the Fort Meade Officer's Club=20 on Tuesday, 19 November. The lunch is at 11:45, the program follows at=20 12:30. The speaker is Brigadier General Jaeger. The topic is=20 "Information Warfare Exercise Lessons Learned." The cost is $10.00 for the luncheon if you register today or Friday, or=20 $12.00 at the door Tuesday. If you are interested in going, please call=20 Vicki Neuman at 301-317-9474 to make a reservation. Thanks Bob Walton ------------------------------------------------------------ To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: aludwig(a)pacbell.net Subject: Legal aspects of information warfare My name is Aaron Ludwig and I am a third year law student at Whittier Law=20 School. I am currently writing a law review article about the legal=20 aspects of information warfare. If anyone has any insight or helpful=20 information regarding this topic please contact me at=20 aaronludwig(a)juno.com or simply reply to this mail. The following are=20 just a few of the questions I hope to analyze and answer: If the U.S. sustains an information-based attack, does this warrant an=20 armed response?(i.e., what constitutes an attack?) What laws are involved in carrying out or defending against information=20 attacks? What laws are involved in the detection of enemy information=20 warriors? Last, but not least, I wonder whether anyone can tell me how to get a=20 hold of the proceedings of any of the information warfare conferences. =20 Keep in mind that I am a highly-leveraged (broke) law student. Thank you. Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: Betty(a)infowar.com Subject: Defense Science Board Task Force Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense=20 (IW-D), will be issuing a report in the next few days. Federal Computer= Week=20 has an interesting article stating that the report called the threat of an= IW=20 attack "significant," adding that the nation's "vulnerabilities are= numerous,=20 [and] the countermeasures are extremely limited...." You can read the= article at=20 http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1111/duck.htm. We will be publishing the= report=20 as it is made available to us. ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:13:20 CST Subject: Flight Information Resource Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com ENN Info Update 11/11/96 - 20:00CST New Information Resource Assists in Tracking Domestic Flights (ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the World-Wide-Web. This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and= the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). The= program will then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have been delayed. The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove useful while waiting for Grandma's flight to come in from Des Moines, or a variety of other uses. Courtesy of: EmergencyNet News Service Emergency Response & Research Institute 6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312 Chicago, IL. 60646 (773) 631-3774 - Voice (773) 631-4703 - Fax (773) 631-3467 - Modem/Emergency BBS On-Line http://www.emergency.com - Website enn(a)emergency.com - E-mail ------------------------------------------------------------ END Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 DIRECT REQUESTS to: list(a)infowar.com with one-line in the BODY, NOT in the subject line. Subscribe infowar TO JOIN GROUP Unsubscribe infowar TO LEAVE GROUP Help infowar TO RECEIVE HELP=20 TO POST A MESSAGE: E-Mail to infowar(a)infowar.com =20 _____________________________________________________ Infowar.Com Interpact, Inc. Winn Schwartau winn(a)infowar.com http://www.infowar.com 813-393-6600 Voice 813-393-6361 FAX Sponsor Opportunities/Comments/Help Betty G. O'Hearn Assistant to Winn Schwartau http://www.infowar.com betty(a)infowar.com 813-367-7277 Voice 813-363-7277 FAX -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Message:0002 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Subject: Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 We thank our sponsors: Internet Security Solutions New Dimensions International - Security Training Secure Computing Corporation HOMECOM Communications National Computer Security Association OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS, Inc. __________________________________________________ Infowar(a)infowar.com is brought to you in the the interest of an open, unclassified exchange of information and ideas as a means for advancement of Information Warfare related issues. Topics of discussion for this list include: Infowar, Electronic Civil Defense, Hacking, Defensive Techniques, Policy, Non-Lethals, Psyops, Chemical Warfare Agents and WMD. As the list expands we will adapt to the needs and desires of our subscribers. __________________________________________________________ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: winn(a)infowar.com Subject: MCTL Process Infowar.com is proud to have been given permission to publish the latest Military Critical Technologies List - Part I: Weapons Systems Technologies. THE MCTL Process is the systemic ongoing assessment and analyses of technologies to determine which technologies are Militarily Critical and therefore should have additional controlsplaced on them or made subject to export control. This document is the first of three parts. Part two: Weapons of Mass Production and Part three: Critical Developing Technologies are in development and will be published when completed and made available to us. Don't miss reading this! Download Acrobat as the file is in .pdf format. (acrobat readers are free) This file will be posted the week of November 17 1996. ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Betty(a)infowar.com From: "Eric L. Nelson, M.A." <enelson(a)nosc.mil> Subject: G-TWO RECRUITMENT FORM Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com Please use this ammended form to inform your DOD intel and CI colleagues about g-two. Please discard previous editions. Thanks, EL Nelson moderator Get The Word Out (G-TWO) is designed to provide direct assistance to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence teams by providing open-source intelligence and news summaries pertinent to DOD interests. Topics include: Political: Politics of intelligence. Political history of hotspots/groups/personalities. Information: WWW locations of intelligence usefulness with brief summaries. Lists, databases, and archives accessible via the internet. Resource sharing. NBC-M (nuclear, biological, chemical & medical): Biochem threat analysis/events (outbreaks). Medical technology and issues related to DOD missions/personnel. Tracking the development of NBC capabilities by country/group. Terrorism: Threat/threat mindsets/tactical intent. Issues related to security and threat issues. International Crime. New developments in terrorism. New technology/weapons systems with CT application. Info. on capability of Special Teams/personnel. Military/Intel Agencies: Force protection. OPSEC. Military plans/policies. Reports on terrorism/counter-terrorism activities. Data on military forces and capabilities (order of battle). Analysis: More analysis by SME's (subject matter experts). Emerging threat analysis. EOD/chemical analysis. Group profies (themes, objectives, etc.) Who are these people? Cultural profiles and key info/customs to know. Technology & Industrial: Hacking/Infowar. Technology/precursor tracking, what is being procured by others. Industrial/technical intelligence on foreign countries- what are they doing? Other: Central/South American, and Caribbean information. Psychological profiles/cultural profiles of groups/personalities. Deception. Stateless Warfare Issues (gangs, 4th generation warfare). State department info. Washington Early Bird news summaries. World hot spot info. Information warfare. Daily news articles on terrorism and related issues State Department country studies State Department terrorist groups/personalities files Emergency News Network (ENN) updates Intelligent Concepts Daily News Summaries Special support tasking News flashes More to be added soon! MEMBERSHIP: Limited to DOD intelligence and counterintelligence personnel, (active, reserve, or retired). Non-DOD intel/CI applicants may request a waiver by demonstrating a need for inclusion, (such as law enforcement intelligence, FBI, etc.) To apply for membership answer the following questions and email to Eric Nelson at: enelson(a)rohan.sdsu.edu <send the following> NAME/RANK: MILITARY UNIT/ORG: JOB TITLE: EMAIL ADDRESS: REG/RES/RET? NAME OF PERSON WHO REFERRED YOU (MANDATORY): <clip here and send> ------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Robert A. Walton" <waltonr(a)meade-emh2.army.mil> Subject: DC Area Infowar Event Cc: "Betty G. O'Hearn" <betty(a)infowar.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:04:22 +0000 You may wish to post the following notice. The Maryland chapter of Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association will have a luncheon meeting at the Fort Meade Officer's Club on Tuesday, 19 November. The lunch is at 11:45, the program follows at 12:30. The speaker is Brigadier General Jaeger. The topic is "Information Warfare Exercise Lessons Learned." The cost is $10.00 for the luncheon if you register today or Friday, or $12.00 at the door Tuesday. If you are interested in going, please call Vicki Neuman at 301-317-9474 to make a reservation. Thanks Bob Walton ------------------------------------------------------------ To: infowar(a)infowar.com From: aludwig(a)pacbell.net Subject: Legal aspects of information warfare My name is Aaron Ludwig and I am a third year law student at Whittier Law School. I am currently writing a law review article about the legal aspects of information warfare. If anyone has any insight or helpful information regarding this topic please contact me at aaronludwig(a)juno.com or simply reply to this mail. The following are just a few of the questions I hope to analyze and answer: If the U.S. sustains an information-based attack, does this warrant an armed response?(i.e., what constitutes an attack?) What laws are involved in carrying out or defending against information attacks? What laws are involved in the detection of enemy information warriors? Last, but not least, I wonder whether anyone can tell me how to get a hold of the proceedings of any of the information warfare conferences. Keep in mind that I am a highly-leveraged (broke) law student. Thank you. Aaron ------------------------------------------------------------ To: Infowar(a)infowar.com From: Betty(a)infowar.com Subject: Defense Science Board Task Force Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense (IW-D), will be issuing a report in the next few days. Federal Computer Week has an interesting article stating that the report called the threat of an IW attack "significant," adding that the nation's "vulnerabilities are numerous, [and] the countermeasures are extremely limited...." You can read the article at http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1111/duck.htm. We will be publishing the report as it is made available to us. ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:13:20 CST Subject: Flight Information Resource Sender: owner-g-two(a)majordomo.netcom.com ENN Info Update 11/11/96 - 20:00CST New Information Resource Assists in Tracking Domestic Flights (ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the World-Wide-Web. This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). The program will then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have been delayed. The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove useful while waiting for Grandma's flight to come in from Des Moines, or a variety of other uses. Courtesy of: EmergencyNet News Service Emergency Response & Research Institute 6348 N. Milwaukee Ave., #312 Chicago, IL. 60646 (773) 631-3774 - Voice (773) 631-4703 - Fax (773) 631-3467 - Modem/Emergency BBS On-Line http://www.emergency.com - Website enn(a)emergency.com - E-mail ------------------------------------------------------------ END Infowar Thursday November 14 1996 Volume 01: Number 03 DIRECT REQUESTS to: list(a)infowar.com with one-line in the BODY, NOT in the subject line. Subscribe infowar TO JOIN GROUP Unsubscribe infowar TO LEAVE GROUP Help infowar TO RECEIVE HELP TO POST A MESSAGE: E-Mail to infowar(a)infowar.com _____________________________________________________ Infowar.Com Interpact, Inc. Winn Schwartau winn(a)infowar.com http://www.infowar.com 813-393-6600 Voice 813-393-6361 FAX Sponsor Opportunities/Comments/Help Betty G. O'Hearn Assistant to Winn Schwartau http://www.infowar.com betty(a)infowar.com 813-367-7277 Voice 813-363-7277 FAX

1 0

Inside Currents Vol. 1, No. 6
by Newsletter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

******************************************************* Inside Currents Vol 1, No. 6 November 1996 This is the electronic newsletter you requested when you joined Computer Currents Interactive at http://www.currents.net. ******************************************************* If you would like to REMOVE yourself from this newsletter mailing list, you may send an "unsubscribe" message to Computer Currents Interactive. ***To unsubscribe, address your message to listserv(a)compcurr.com. Leave the subject area in the header blank. In the body, simply type unsubscribe newsletter For security reasons you will then receive a message asking you to confirm your actions by replying with an "ok" (without quotes) in the body of your message. If this newsletter has been forwarded to you and you wish to SUBSCRIBE, you may join Computer Currents Interactive at http://www.currents.net. If you have any further questions, please send a message to insidecurrents(a)compcurr.com. ******************************************************* IN THIS INSIDE CURRENTS: 1. Our online computer forums are up and running. Get some free advice! http://www.currents.net/ 2. We've launched a new section: The Computer Advisor http://www.currents.net/cciu/advisor/advisor.html 3. If you're looking to buy computer equipment, try NetQuote. http://www.currents.net/services/netquote/netquote.html 4. BookPoint: We've made it easier for you to buy books in our online database http://www.bookpoint.com/ 5. COMDEXMeet us in Las Vegas at the biggest computer show in the country. ******************************************************* 1. Get some free advice: Our online computer forums are up and running. Weve opened up our bulletin boards to give Computer Currents Interactive users some free advice. Our online forums are fast becoming the best place to stop in with your computer questions and to share your experience and compare notes with others. Watch for advice from our computer advisorsindustry experts who will help you get the most out of your computer. http://www.currents.net/ 2. We've launched a new section: The Computer Advisor In our newly redesigned Computer Advisor section, youll find state-of-the industry news and reviews, along with simple how -to materials to help you use your computer to its best advantage. We also offer up HelpLinks to the most helpful sites on the web. http://www.currents.net/cciu/advisor/advisor.html 3. If you're looking to buy computer equipment, try NetQuote. Our easy-to-use service brings computer stores to you. You tell us what kind of equipment you want. We'll send your specifications out to stores in your area, and they'll contact you with a price quote. It's minimum-effort comparison shopping, exclusively for our members http://www.currents.net/services/netquote/netquote.html 4. BookPoint: We've made it easier for you to buy books in our online database Beginning this week, you'll find current computer-related bestseller books available online at a 10% discount. Also in BookPoint (our partnership with Staceys Professional Bookstore) you can access our growing database of professional books. All the books are available to CCI members at a discount. http://www.bookpoint.com/books/picks.html 5. COMDEXMeet us in Las Vegas at the biggest computer trade show in the country It's the biggest computer tribal gathering of the year, and we'll be at Pavilion #4, booth #P4705 just outside of the Las Vegas Convention Center. Stop by to meet our staff, tell us what you like (and dislike) about our site and what you'd like to see more of in the future. Viva Las Vegas! ******************************************************* Computer Currents Interactive http://www.currents.net *******************************************************

1 0

Members of Parliament Problem
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I read awhile ago that certain members of Parliament do not speak their mind regarding the situation in Northern Ireland. The reason they give is that they have children and they fear the IRA. There are times when one wishes to speak anonymously, yet speak as a member of a group. Is there a way to take published public keys and combine them with your own in such a way that your identity is not compromised, but it is clear beyond a doubt that you control one of a set of public keys? Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

6 6

Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:01 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: >>> Thats >>>what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts >>>were extinguished. > >>Ah! So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh? Well, >>if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how >>you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished." > >I admit no such thing if you could understand logic you would >realize that. There were pre-existing courts, those of King George. Misleading. And wrong. Wrong, because existing state courts were not eliminated. And misleading, because both "commonlaw" and "equity" courts were "those of King George." At least, the judges were appointed by the King. But the revolution merely meant that George no longer had the authority to appoint the judges; it does not mean that the courts were, themselves, eliminated as institutions. >They were extingished. "Extinguished"? Like a fire, or something like that? You really need to start using more exact terminology. I think you're trying to read a lot more into the US Constitution than was written into it. In order to be able to claim that it had an effect, you need to document that effect. Find the particular section which "extinguished" a court. Moreover, you need to explain why you're ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, both of which make it clear that there was much continuity not affected by the Federal constitution. >Had common law courts existed (they did not >but for the sake of arguement I am indulging you in your fantasy) When did they not exist? Be very specific; are you referring to just America, or Britain as well? >they would exist no longer. You haven't documented this claim. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 6

Mounting Crypted directories on Multiuser Machines.
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was wondering about something: Say you have a unix (or other multi-user OS) box, how hard would it be for someone who was good at programming to modify Blaze's CFS to allow the following: Every user has a directory: /home/usr1/ /usr2/ /usr3/ and inside each directory they have: /home/usr1/html/ /files/ /.login /.usr1crypt such that /.usr1crypt gets mounted at _login_ time as a crypted file system under /files. The way I envision this is that one would log in (either from the console, or via ssh ideally) and be presented with the option of mounting said directory and asked for a passphrase, then the directory gets mounted. I took a look at Blaze's CFS, but he mentions that it is really only for a single user system, and well <looks sheepish I can't get it to compile on my machine, so I can't really play with it on my end. I would think that this would be fairly difficult, otherwise it would have already been done right? Or am I missing something more basic? It would seem that running something like this would do 2 things. 1) It would be much more difficult to prove that a service provider knew what files a user was keeping lying around because unless the user was logged in, not even the Sysadmin could "peek" at the files. 2) Provide the user with greater privacy. Users could keep PGP keys on the system without much risk, and as long as access was either thru the console, or thru something like ssh, you should be rather safe. Is anyone working toward something like this? I kinda got the idea that CFS was more designed and intended for single-user-at-a-time systems, but the application I had in mind was more of a (old) C2-type organization. Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff snow(a)smoke.suba.com

2 1

[CRYPTO] web-of-trust, signatures, and anonymity
by Ted Garrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ok, People... Let's say that I receive a message via a mailing list from an entity. This message is signed with a PGP public key. Being that I am interested in some of the ideas proposed by this entity, I respond to the message, but I fat-finger my mailer and it sends out the message unsigned. However, my .signature is reasonably automated and my public key id is included there. I obtain the the public key associated with the original entity from the keyservers and the signature verifies, but the key on the servers is not signed. Concurrently, I receive a message in response to a message I sent to this entity, which comes to me encrypted with my public key and signed with the private key paired off to the public key I obtained for this entity from a keyserver. Being a believer in anonymity, I feel that whatever person, machine, or thing which placed the key on the keyserver and kindly responded to my message is reasonably expected to be the owner of the private key associated with the public key I obtained. Is this a fallacy? Am I wrong to sign the public key I got from the keyserver and return said key to the address purported to be the entity of ownership? What the entity does with the signature is, in my opinion up to it. Is it unrealistic to assign the probability of two entities being able to generate signatures for the same public key as close to zero? (consider that this is a 2047 bit key) Am I opening myself to attacks? By this, I mean to ask whether or not MY key is in any way possibly compromised in the exchange described. I keep a separate and 'unpublished' keypair to be used for physically met individuals. The public key of this keypair is NEVER sent by any means other than physically. This key signs only the keys of the people I meet in person or have extensive telephone conversations with. While people who recieve the signature of this key also get a copy of it, I only distribute this key to those I trust not to disseminate it further. - --- "Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQEVAwUBMowSJc1+l8EKBK5FAQEg2Af/agcalrlyDK+Ku+Qq7cnODOJjFIcsDAjh LLuA6KG2DeDQUiAH72uL5WgdiHQaZroAhqRsFGDic3zmc0YGDQkI4W2KTTsVFi08 ubcX9JCnOGuDWxLIwvBdCX/FxDsPyrhTeEUNjjkXp+5k+BdxzLTfbUgbnLgM/BGJ wD3Bq+evmTr86ul0SLUs3KL5h0488LhalPYTKtm9hdO9f3K01kz5W+FLUK3lXKJb YH2e2Ob2Nr/uSH6ElluSMVGtU09i+s40uloqokzAyB7NuTStSCupqUw0nHQKFIY7 Or8uwmZF6c7ivtacstViZ7/6xM0km7wmoyWsee3gxe63LH/Mqr25/A== =0HFl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

It is getting easier
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From an infowar article on the list] >(ENN) A free service called "Flight Trax" is now available on the >World-Wide-Web. >This new information resource allows one to track the progress of any >domestic airflight within the contigious 48 states. > >Call up: http://www.amerwxcncpt.com/ with your favorite internet >browser. The program will ask you for the flight number, the airline, and the destination airport (using the FAA designated three-letter code). >The program will >then show you the kind of aricraft used, its flight's path, its location >on that path (accurate to within two or three minutes), and its expected >time of arrival at its destination. It will not tell you why it may have >been delayed. >The information is provided by Flyte-Comm of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, which >uses data from the FAA to produce the flight estimates. Might be prove If I remember correctly, some of the newer transponders used on commercial aircraft actually transmit GPS data back to the controller in real time. I wonder how long it will be before the FAA will include such information in their database. "To obtain the position of any passenger flight in the US within 10 meters, click here." -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred

1 0

Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > I know 3.0 uses discrete log cryptography but whether it will be > El Gamal or DH or other I don`t know. I would imagine in the end it > would come down to a question of what is unpatented first and I have > no idea on the patent date for El Gamal (is it even patented?) but DH > hasn`t long to go.... According to Schneier, ElGamal isn't patented, but claimed to be covered by the Diffie-Hellman patent, which expires 29 April 1997. Bert-Jaap

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:22 ìì 14/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: > Intelligence + money + time * will = Result > Some + 0 + a bit * some = A server with 4 or 5 mailing lists. Indeed! But I tend to use them for A.I. Research, and there is little left of 'em for them mailing listes ya knaw! :-) :-) > For every "tentacle" of the Vast Media Conglomerates, there is >some loose nut with a photocopier (or access to Kinko's). Thank Goddess! :-) >> Even your American President is in reality a puppet of the Trilateral >> Commission, who effectively also control CNN, the Washington Post, >> and many many many other things all over the world. > > WHO is nuts? The American and European public, i.e. _we_ who trust those people! :-) >> P.S. Even if you offered me a million dollars I'd stay away from >> your country. My sanity is much more valuable. :-) >> (The Immigration Authorities in the U.S. have missed the point: >> We DON'T want to come to you guys. It's the last thing we'd want!) > > One of these days reality is going to hit you like a runaway >freight train. You mean my check for $ 1.000.000 is... coming? :-) Cheers George P.S. The reasons I'd decline the check are simply the difficulties in having to (1) hide from your authorities as an 'illegal immigrant', (2) having to work for someone else as opposed to myself (as I do over here) andf (3) having to hire a psychiatrist sooner or later! All this maan, is more costly than $ 1.000.000. And... yes, I _am_ nutts! (Aren't we all? ;-) )

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:19 ðì 15/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: (in the end)... > That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the >requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they >have already built. Hey man, do they sell "FREEDOM KITS" in American Supermarkets? :-) ROTFL! (and started saying): [...] >> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you >> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice >> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain >> American patriotic organizations?) > > It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, >refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. You mean that if... Dr. Dimitri Vulis hires a Mafia-man to kill ya, (to silence you) this wouldn't be censorship, since it would not be "Official" ? :-) >Mr. >Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF >sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. OK, any bombs thrown in the offices of the Ecological Party are not official censorship either. It was _unofficial_ censorship by... "Motor Oil Corporation" trying to stop the Flow of Information (about their oil leakages polluting the Mediterranean Sea)... See what I mean? > He is the OWNER of this list, and the machine it runs on. If he chooses >(which he didn't) to keep someone from using the list, it is his right. If I own a building and invite you to an open meeting inside this building do I own what you _say_ or your rights to _say_ it? > "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and >who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine >dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected >in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine >should print any writings submitted to it. See my other posting about why the "Editorial" analogy has serious flaws. I don't see 'em mailing listes hangin' over the kiosk in the centre of town, ya know. Nor does the list-ownere make his bread out of 'em. And finally, we readers aren't as stupid as to forget that we are also the WRITERS of them mailing listes! :-) :-) >> Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider >> what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications >> media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership >> and communciation they espouse? > > How would this happen? Setting up a press is fairly easy, at least >a small hand operated press. Start your own magazine, start your own >mailing list. Bulshit! If this happened, nobody would exist to allow us to express ourselvers. Even if we build own "Resistance Movement" (or an alternative kind of Internet) the damage would be serious and irreversible! Are you telling us that setting up an entire _PRESS_ is fairly easy? Listen man, it's not. My printer (who printed the boxes for my software) will tell you this! He'll also explain why my major competitor in Greece owns an entire Printing/Publishing house just for Computer Manuals (Singular S.A.). Setting up a mailing list is not _that_ easy, but it's still much more intricate and difficult than accepting the Basic Principles of Free Expression: DON'T KICK OUT GUESTS YOU INVITE TO "OPEN MEETINGS". (In the Internet or anywhere else in fact). If you don't like 'em guests don't invite them in the first place, or don't call your meetings "OPEN". e.g. Just as aga tolerates me and vice versa, so should Gilmore tolerate Dimitri Vulis. Cheers George

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Sean Roach wrote: > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:46:08 -0500 > From: Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> > To: aga <aga(a)dhp.com>, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News > > >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mark M. wrote: > > >> Mark > >> - -- > >> finger -l for PGP key > >> PGP encrypted mail prefered. > > To which, at 08:42 AM 11/14/96 -0500, aga wrote: > > >Why? Are you a criminal? > >What are you hiding behind your PGP? > > Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] privacy > is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that. > It just "looks" that way on the net. I do live-fucking, newsgroup flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally, and OPENLY on the InterNet. The more you PGP, the worse you look. Nobody reads your e-mail, so stop being so paranoid. -aga

3 7

Re: One Big Telecoms Company
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:02 PM 11/14/96 -0800, Dave Del Torto wrote: >Um, a _better_ one, now that government monopolies are largely out of the >way, leaving significant infrastructure for them to use? There's this one >little company called MCI, see, and there's this _other_ little company >called BT, and... There are now 150 Long Distance telephone companies in the US vs 1 when I was a kid. There are now 5 or 6 broadcast and 150 cable TV networks in the US vs 3 when I was a kid. There will soon be 5 cellular and PCS companies in NYC vs 0 when I was a kid. There are now 6000 ISPs vs 0 when I was a kid. DCF

3 2

Re: Well-regulated
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >>Cypherpunks does not seem to me to be anything like the well- >>regulated lists you ascribe to Prof Volokh. >> > >Declan should rest his point here. the cpunk list is notorious >for being way astray. yet cpunks continuously argue against >anyone with a moderator type role. could there be some correlation >between lack of moderation/leadership on the list and the >piles of noise that people incessantly complain about? of >course I'm insane for suggesting this. Vlad, "Well-regulated" means different things to different mind-sets. As do "leadership," "moderator" and "anarchy." All can be fulfilled in diametrically opposite ways: benevolent suppression of assent to attain uninspired unanimity or pissed respect for your opponents skill at insulting you and your ideas, sexual preferences, hair style, even, ahem, code and writing abilities. What you call "way astray" about cypherpunks I would call "healthy waywardness of stray cats." I say, let the wild cats grow and wail backalley of the spiffy facades and green lawns; let them disturb sly cultivators of the currently fashionable, marketable career-boosting management of the Internet herd. That's my critique of the 1st Amend mongers (spit): too narrow- minded about freedom of speech, they always give themselves away by fanaticism about proper grammar and spelling and behavior, well, you know, demanding polymorphous heathens do it like missionaries who think tongues are only for talking. Heed the complicity of God and Mammon, one person's butthole is another person's way to heaven on earth. As missionaries admit about the joys of exotic lands and stray cat codes and wailing discourse. The Occident is a prig, and overly addicted to a tight-laced definitions of propriety, heirarchy and rank. That's "well-regulated" at its worst and meanest and murderous and censorious.

1 0

Why I shall never undescribe
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Bovine Remailer <haystack(a)cow.net> >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >Foulmouthed Timothy May rehashes his lies like a rabid parrot >choking on a stale mantra stuck in its poisonous beak. Where else today can one find such prose? Nay poetry! And they say poetry is dead!

1 0

RE: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by Stephen Boursy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: aga Sent: Thursday, November 14, 1996 8:30 AM To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org Cc: Dave Hayes; InterNet Freedom Council; Declan McCullagh; cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace! On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:12:50 -0800 (PST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Reply-To: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org > To: Dave Hayes <dave(a)kachina.jetcafe.org> > Cc: freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News > > I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of > meaningless political rants. > Jealousy rears it's ugly head. You just wish you had the credibility that Dave Hayes has. Declan has no credibility but quite honestly it doesn't seem to be worth much effort on the Freedom Knight list to debate the censorous fool. Let's keep our energies in that regard to the public forum where exposure to this type of nonsense will do the most good. > * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out > http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my > recent articles. Political safety? Hardly. > This Declan_McCullagh is a long-time cabal.member, so his critique of a Freedom-Knight like Dave Hayes is to be given short shrift. And again-he's not worth the effort debating privately. As far as the mailing list goes I'm sure we can get forwards from some kind soul and just post the whole thing publically on usenet for free and open discussion. > * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." > Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a > computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private > club. There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities > exist. Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not > (and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite. > None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list. When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum. The whole problem here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore. Well then let's put their precious censored mailing list in the public domain. > * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis > from posting. > > * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned > *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about > this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the > case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force > Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list? > No, he is saying that people can use an e-mail filter and not listen to Vulis if they want to. It was a very simple thing; are you too uneducated to know how to use an e-mail filter? Any idiot can use an email filter-he knows that. Again-on our mailing list he's not worth the effort-let's take the subject and their mailing list to usenet. Steve > By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of > Usenet," a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. > Wrong! The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should NOT be controlled by John Gilmore! This just goes to show the real facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it. Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell. They are disgrace to the entire InterNet community. I run 6 different mailing lists, and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me. The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller. > -Declan > -aga.admin InterNet Freedom Council > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote: > > > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.] > > > > > Cypher-Censored > > > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) > > > > Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier. > > > > You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes > > reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them > > in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and > > substituting issues which only hold themselves in place. > > > > [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in > > this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate > > at the level of understanding of those who use them.] > > > > > Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in a > > > forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show Vulis > > > the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks > > > continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The > > > incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can > > > prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only > > > government controls on expression can be called "censorship." > > > > "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the > > interactor. > > yes, and all you need is a simple mail filter. > > In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what > > one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of > > interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain > > sources of input. > > > > In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even > > desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people > > then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive > > input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering > > mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even > > programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one > > interacts with. > > > > Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly > > cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from > > cyberspace are either: > > > > -quite clueless about the tools at their disposal > > -ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input > > or -in need of large amounts of attention from others > > > > Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in > > learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but > > ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such > > cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for > > censorship. > > > > A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial > > that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. > > More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need > > is not and should never be a reason for censorship. > > > > Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this > > better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example: > > > > > Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list > > > last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the > > > 100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of nasty > > > daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. > > > > "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted > > this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared > > standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. > > > > > The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with > > > it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can > > > shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a > > > list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no > > > government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And > > > the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing > > > list with different rules. > > > > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization > > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. > > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you > > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice > > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain > > American patriotic organizations?) > > > > What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? > > Here we witness another example: > > > > > But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised > > > that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think Gilmore's > > > actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or > > > private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If > > > your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility > > > to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others. > > > > Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually > > the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this > > analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. > > > > The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or > > agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those > > who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of > > expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found > > in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is > > just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this > > truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to > > sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies: > > > > > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing > > > lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control. > > > Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that > > > exercise the highest degree of editorial control. > > > > Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one > > small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value > > to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of > > people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people > > who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase > > by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? > > > > > For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician "an > > > act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with > > > this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed > > > to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark. > > > They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my > > > machine was guaranteed by the Constitution." > > > > It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's > > forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all > > *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he > > lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to > > encounter speech that you *want* to censor. > > > > Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider > > what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications > > media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership > > and communciation they espouse? Indeed. The EFF is a disgrace to the entire InterNet. The EFF is definitely a censorship organization, and it should never be trusted again. > > ------ > > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org > > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet > > > > Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable > > of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed > > by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death. > > > > >

9 11