December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

I can't believe this!
by anonymous＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous, I can't believe this I came across this on the Web. Is this really you? Check out this URL! http://206.129.140.93/iic.htm?BS=BS971214_17953.88894262 That's pretty incredible. Way to go!

1 0

We Do All The Work And You Collect All The Money
by webmstr＠goplay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you're NOT currently looking for an income opportunity, then just delete this message. If you ARE looking for an income opportunity, then... WELCOME TO THE HOTTEST CASH GENERATING PROGRAM ON THE INTERNET! I'm sure that this is not the first opportunity that you have ever run across that claims that you can make a lot of cash, very quickly. But, this just might be the only program you'll ever run across, that can actually make that happen. Every other cash generating program that you've ever run across was probably doomed from the start, for 3 simple reasons. 1) You needed to dedicate a lot more time and effort into the marketing of your program, than you originally planned. 2) You needed to invest a lot more money into the marketing of your program, than you originally expected. 3) Your success depended solely on you. And, unless you're a marketing expert, your expected level of success just wasn't going to be achieved. Well, that's where our expertise comes in. We here at Internet Marketing Services, have been asked to develop an effective marketing system that would require virtually no effort and very little capital. We are proud to tell you, that our experience in this industry has enabled us to create a very low cost, high response, marketing program, that blows away traditional methods of network marketing and advertising. The secret to becoming successful in any business is to get your message to as many people as possible, in a cost effective manner. Through our creative advertising program were able to greatly reduce our costs and we are simply passing the savings on to you. IT'S REALLY AMAZING HOW EASY THIS IS AND HOW BEAUTIFULLY IT WORKS! By compounding our efforts and combining your advertising along with other income opportunity seekers wanting to participate in this highly profitable program, Internet Marketing Services is now able to offer you the best Internet marketing rates available anywhere. HERE'S HOW IT WORKS. Multi-level marketing is still used by some of the largest companies in the world today; Amway, Excel and Avon, just to name a few. This highly effective, multi-level business provides you the same type of opportunity. A business that offers a proven cash generating program, complete with a low cost internet marketing service. THIS IS THE SECRET TO YOUR SUCCESS! If a new customer decides to participate in your program, they simply send you a $5.00 commission. And the best part is, we do all the hard work for you, you just collect your cash. As with all multi-level businesses, your income is generated by recruiting new customers that have the same interest as you. The desire to create a large cash income. And, every state in the USA allows us to legally recruit for you, via the Internet. For an extremely low fee of only $35.00, we will market this highly profitable opportunity to 750,000 people with your name and address inserted into the mailing. Then you just go to your mailbox and collect your cash. That's all there is to it. HERE'S HOW YOUR ADVERTISING DOLLARS COMPOUND. In each mailing your name will be included with 2 other distributors. We will then advertise your opportunity to 250,000 people, in 3 seperate mailings. So your opportunity will be offered to 750,000 different people. EXAMPLE: Mailing #1: 250,000 People Mailing #2: 250,000 People Mailing #3: 250,000 People FOR A TOTAL OF: 750,000 People NOW, LET'S COMPARE COSTS. If you were to send your offer through the postal service, it would cost you $240,000.00, in postage alone. The typical e-mail company charges 1-2 dollars per 1000 addresses mailed to. That would be a minimum of $750.00. Other methods could be even more expensive than using the postal service. As you now can see, by compounding your advertising dollars with other income opportunity seekers, it allows us to offer you a cost effective way to cash in on a proven income generating program. And remember, we do all the work for you. You just go to the mailbox and collect your cash. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY. It does not require you to come into contact with people, do any hard work, and best of all you never have to leave the house except to get the mail. This multi-level, e-mail order, marketing program works perfectly, every time. E-mail is the ultimate sales tool of the future, and the future is now! If you ever wanted "THE EASY WAY" to make a lot of money... just follow these 3 easy steps using this sure fire system! STEP 1: Send $5.00 in "CASH", NO CHECKS PLEASE, to each of the 3 distributors below. Just like new customers will be sending to you, once your name has been placed onto the mailing. Also, include a seperate sheet of paper with your name as it is to appear on this mailing, along with the words, " I WOULD LIKE TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR INCOME OPPORTUNITY NETWORKING SERVICE." Once the 3 distributors receive your $5.00 payment, they will each e-mail us your name, verifying that you have paid them their commission. This service also eliminates the possibility of anyone replacing any existing names on the mailing. #1: S. Stucki Box 242 Delta, UT 84624 #2: QBS, Inc 1425 Main St. #140 Ramona, CA 92065 #3: Richard Norman 8 Nantucket Court Windsor, CO 80550 STEP 2: Send $35.00, along with your name and address as you want it to appear on this mailing. (You can use your full name, your initials, a business name or what ever you prefer) Once we receive your payment and verification via e-mail that you paid each distributor their commission; we will automatically position your name and address through all 3 mailings until this offer has been e-mailed to 750,000 people. Be sure to include your e-mail address. Once we receive your payment, we will e-mail you our priority e-mail address. This is how you will notify us that you received your payment from customers that want to paticipate in your program. This is a fool-proof system that eliminates anyone from using your service without paying you your $5.00 commission. You can use this program as many times, and as often as you like. By doing this, it is possilbe to create a perpetual cash income. And yes, we accept personal checks. Make check payable to and send to: Internet Marketing Services 2375 E.Tropicana #135 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Please note, Internet Marketing Services does not participate in your offer, nor do we share in your income in any way. Internet Marketing Services is a low cost, internet marketing provider only. STEP 3: Go to your mailbox daily and collect your cash. MAKING MONEY JUST DOESN'T GET ANY EASIER THAN THIS! By now your probably asking yourself, "how much money can I really make?" Below are the results of an Internet survey conducted by www.survey.net: 50% of the people on the Internet have made purchases, 40% have made several purchases, 80% like the idea of shopping on the Internet, 50% of those purchases are computer information related, 50% think of e-mail as their second most important application, 20% have made purchases because "I came across it and I liked it, so i bought it." POSSIBLE EARNINGS PER 750,000 E-MAILS 1% Response @ 7,500 X $5.00 = $37,500 1/2% Response @ 3,750 X $5.00 = $18,750 1/4% Response @ 1,875 X $5.00 = $ 9,375 1/8% Response @ 938 X $5.00 = $ 4,690 HOW MANY RESPONSES DO YOU THINK YOU WILL RECEIVE? As more and more people look for ways to create wealth and financial security, the need for a successful income opportunity is constantly in demand. If you're fed up with the high cost of marketing and advertising then why not take advantage of this powerful opportunity and start creating wealth for you and your family. We hope that you are one of those unique individuals that does more than just dream about creating wealth and has the foresight to see what an incredible money making opportunity that this really is, requiring no effort and a very small investment. JUST IMAGINE WHAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY CAN DO WITH ALL THAT CASH! FREE WEBSITE: Would you like to create your own website for business or personal use? Just go to www.freeyellow.com and follow the prompts.

1 0

Bulk Mail Guru Spills Beans!
by Insider Marketing 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

New report reveals how to use email to create insane profits. I've learned the secrets that let me send out bulk email while the others have been out of business for almost two months. Discover my insider methods that teach you . . . How to bulk mail, and keep mailing without a BULK ISP! How to get through to AOL Where to get a bullet proof AUTORESPONDER for $5/month. Where to find the best sources of bulk email info on the net! I am currently using all these techniques, and you can too. For more details, send mailto:mailguru@goplay.com

1 0

Re: Radio Free Cypherpunks... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 01:28:43 -0500 > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: Re: Radio Free Cypherpunks... > > At 08:13 -0600 12/13/97, Jim Choate wrote: > >With the recent changes in the law regarding Pirate Radio is anyone looking > > What changes? At the Cato Institute holiday party last night, I was > speaking to a lawyer from the Institute for Justice about pirate radio > lawsuits. The changes you mention didn't come up. What are they? Recently a pirate radio was charged by the FCC for operating without a license. The judge in the case heard the arguments and said their was merit in the question of constitutionality of the FCC regulations. The radio was allowed to stay on the air while both sides prepared their cases. Apparently the judge said something about this being the first time such constitutional questions had been raised. There is also at least one piece of cpunks traffic in this about 2 weeks old when the judge made the ruling. I believe there might be something at one of the ARRL sites. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

news:349242B3.E81DDFC4@cowcentric.net
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

RE: FRB/FCC: 2 WEEKS ARE UP From: Buster <BBusterB(a)cowcentric.net> Reply to: BBusterB(a)cowcentric.net Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 00:09:23 -0800 Organization: =-= Newsgroups: alt.radio.pirate Reply to: newsgroup(s) References: <66ijq2$jj9$1(a)usenet89.supernews.com> <348D1FB2.8F257E91(a)concentric.net> <66t5t6$4ir$1(a)usenet48.supernews.com> ***** wrote: - - Buster <BBusterB(a)concentric.net> wrote: - - >***** wrote: - >> - >> Any news about the FRB case? Seems the FCC goons had to weeks to - >> reply. - - > They don't understand "to weeks". Yes two weeks, then - >FRB et al have two weeks to rebut. Which are the "goons"? - - > DAMMIT! Get your facts straight, _ASTERISKS_. - - > Next: the Court never said it would respond immediately. - >Witness the last procrastination of many months. You must know, - >if you are worth your meager salt, that the Court has no obligation - >to report-out prelimary inputs! - - > It's nice to get your ignorance calibrated, "asterisks". - >So it goes, shit-heads happen! - - >BB - - >-- - - > Laisser les bon rouller! - -------------------------------------------------- - So! Butt-Buddy Ball-Buster rides some ass again! YUP ...especially for ignoramousus! - Look, "Buddy," so I didn't proofread the post before it went up, OK? NO? ...why not? Just a spew? - So what? I think most folks here knew what the question was. - As for getting YOUR facts straight, here's the quote from the Court's - decision: Sure glad you learned _something_! Like to be truthful! -> "The FCC shall file with the Court and serve on Mr. Dunifer its brief - on this issue 14 days from the date of this order. Mr. Dunifer's - opposition is due 7 days thereafter. If the FCC wishes to file a - reply, it may due so 7 days after the opposition is served." - The FCC (the goons) had 2 weeks, and Dunnifer had 1 to rebut. And I - never said anything about the Court responding "immediately." SO? BFD if you don't understand what is entailed, creep! - So go back to spewing in your toilet, cuz it's just stinkin' up the - place around here. NO, you are spewing with your misinformation "wishes". - Did I say goons? Yeah, FCC GOONS, of which you either ARE one, or you - surely are a wannabe. Phone home, spook. Not all Creep! You are so enamoured with your own egocentric specious thoughts that you fail to recognize realities. Anyone who wants can find the latest (hopefully) at: http://www.freeradio.org/ (Dunnifer's pages) and/or http:www.surf.com/~goham/nlg.html (his lawyer's pages) Good surfing. BB -- Laisser les bon rouller!

1 0

Your information
by lnda＠aaaa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LEARN THE SECRET TO MAKING $1285.00 A WEEK SITTING AT YOUR HOME COMPUTER FOR JUST A COUPLE HOURS A DAY! PART-TIME! IN JUST 10 MINUTES WE'LL SHOW YOU AN EASY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WITH YOUR COMPUTER. YOU'LL HAVE PAYCHECKS ARRIVING IN YOUR MAIL BOX SIX DAYS A WEEK. It's fun, it's rewarding, and it's easy. This is so simple most children could do it! All you need is a computer and E-Mail address to begin making excellent money while relaxing in the comfort of your own home. Any week that you have a few hours of spare time, you can make $1285.00, (ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FIVE DOLLARS) There are people doing this every week. Right now there are only a few people around the country who know how to do this. And these few people are having the best time of their lives while their computers make them a high level of income. Even if you are happy with your current job, you can use this easy system in your spare time to create a nice extra income. And let us assure you this system is completely legal. We are so sure anyone can make a great extra income with this unique system, we will even let you try it out for 30 days! And if you're not 100% satisfied, just send it back within 30 days and we will be more than happy to give you a full refund. Once you begin to see how easy it is to make money with your computer, you will wish you had received this letter a long time ago. Anyone can do this, and since very little of your time is required, you will have more free time to spend doing the things you have always wanted to do. So take the first step toward financial freedom and order this powerful money making system today! You'll be glad you did! This system has sold nationwide for as much as $29.95 And in 2 weeks we may be raising the price of our money making system. Send in your order before then to be sure you receive it for only $15.95 To receive your copy of our SIMPLE COMPUTER MONEY MAKING SYSTEM, along with a full 30 day money back guarantee, send a check or money order for $15.95 payable to: Crown Industries 1630 North Main St. Suite# 310 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Allow 4-6 days for delivery (We do not accept orders from the state of Florida) P.S. We challenge you to find a legitimately faster, more lucrative, simple or fail-proof opportunity anyware. There is no need to wonder if this system will work for you. This system works 100% and can begin to immediately pay you cash up-front week after week for a lifetime of wealth. We guarantee you will make money or we'll send your $14.95 back to you.

1 0

victory.txt
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From frbspd(a)crl.com Thu Nov 13 11:41:55 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:48:43 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Dunifer <frbspd(a)crl.com> To: Barry Alexander <peyote(a)netcom.com> Subject: FRB legal victory ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREE RADIO BERKELEY & MICROPOWER BROADCASTING At 7 PM on Wednesday, November 12 attorneys for Stephen Dunifer & Free Radio Berkeley received a 14 page decision via fax from Federal District Court Judge Claudia Wilken announcing her ruling in favor of Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Her ruling denies the FCC's motion for summary judgement for a permanent injunction, states that she has jurisdiction in this case and that the FCC's regulatory structure is unconstitutional. Further, she orders the FCC to submit within 14 days a brief on the constitutional issues raised. Essentially Judge Claudia Wilken affirms all the merits and arguments raised by the defense attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Stay tuned for further details. The full text of the decision will be posted ASAP. A victory party will take place on Saturday evening, November 15 in Berkeley. Place to be announced as soon as one is secured. Everyone is invited. Stephen Dunifer Free Radio Berkeley

1 0

wilkenrules.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JUDGE WILKEN DENIES FCC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT!!! Press Release Follows. To Go Directly To The Full Text Of Judge Wilken's Decision, Click Here National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications 558 Capp Street, San Francisco 94110 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE COURT REJECTS FCC'S CONSTITUTIONAL CATCH 22 United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken has rejected another attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to silence Berkeley Micro Radio Broadcaster Stephen Dunifer, founder of Free Radio Berkeley. In a 13 page opinion released on November 12, 1997, Judge Wilken once again rejected the government's motion for an injunction to silence micro radio broadcasts by local radio pioneer Stephen Dunifer. In 1995, Judge Wilken rejected the government's first motion for a preliminary injunction against Dunifer's broadcasts. At that time the Court found merit in Dunifer's argument that the FCC's ban on low power, affordable FM broadcasting was a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech to all in the United States. In a blatant attempt to avoid facing its First Amendment obligations the FCC then urged Wilken to permanently enjoin Dunifer from Broadcasting and at the same time argued that she could not even consider the issue of whether its rules, which prevent him from getting a license, are unconstitutional. In a Kafkaesqe argument, the Commission argued that Wilken had jurisdiction to issue an injunction, but no jurisdiction to hear Dunifer's constitutional arguments. The government claimed that only the higher federal courts could consider the constitutional question. In her November 12 decision rejecting the Government's position, Judge Wilken pointed to the fact that the FCC had taken exactly the opposite position in the 1994 case of Dougan vs FCC. In that case, an Arizona micro radio broadcaster had appealed an FCC fine (for broadcasting without a license) to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal, and the FCC had argued that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction over the case, and that it had to be heard by the District Court. The Court of Appeals agreed with the FCC and sent the case back to the District Court. Judge Wilken noted that the Arizona broadcaster had raised the same constitutional arguments in the Court of Appeals that Dunifer is raising. The Court ruled that in sending all of the issues in the Arizona case to the District Court, the Appeals Court recognized that the District Court had jurisdiction over all aspects of the case. In denying the Government's motion for an injunction "without prejudice," Judge Wilken ordered the Government to file a further brief on the question of whether the unconstitutionality of the FCC's ban on micro radio is a valid legal defense to an injunction against broadcasting at low power without a license. Dunifer's attorneys, Louis Hiken and Allen Hopper of San Francisco, will have an opportunity to rebut the government's arguments on this point. In response to pressure from the commercial broadcaster's lobby, the National Association of Broadcasters (N.A.B.), the FCC has in recent months been stepping up its campaign of harassment against the thousands of micro radio stations now on the air in this country. Hiken commented "The broadcast industry is clearly afraid of these little community stations which are speaking truth to its power. In trying to do the N.A.B.'s bidding, the FCC demonstrates that it is nothing but an enforcement arm of the commercial broadcast industry and the multi-national corporations which own it." The National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Democratic Communications has represented the Lawyers Guild, San Francisco's Media Alliance, and the Women's International News Gathering Services as a "Friend of the Court" (Amicus) in this case. In its Friend of the Court brief the Lawyers Guild pointed out that FCC regulations make it impossible for all but the very wealthy to even apply for a broadcast license. This, they told the Court, is the equivalent of saying anyone could speak from a soap box in the park, but the box had to be made of gold. Guild attorney Peter Franck commented "In an era when Disney owns ABC, the world's largest defense contractor owns NBC and CNN merges with Time which merges with Warner, and when 'public' broadcasting is told to get its money from corporations, micro radio may be our last best hope for democracy on the air ways." He continued "Judge Wilken's decision is a courageous rejection of the Government's attempt to use a legal Catch-22 to avoid facing the fact that its ban on micro radio flies in the face of the Constitution." The legal team representing Dunifer and the Amicae are very pleased with Judge Wilken's reasoned and thorough decision denying the FCC's motion to have the case resolved without a trial on the merits. For almost 70 years, the FCC has catered solely to the interests of commercial corporate giants, through their mouthpiece, the National Association of Broadcasters. These are the pirates, who have stolen the airwaves from the American people, and who represent corporate interests valued at more than 60 billion dollars. Only the Pentagon, the Silicon Valley and the transportation industries possess the financial wallop represented by the NAB and its constituents. Judge Wilken's decision represents a vision of what it would be like for the American people to be given back their own voice. The decision suggests the likely unconstitutionality of the entire regulatory structure underlying the FCC's ban on low power radio. It forewarns of the total failure of that agency to carry out its statutory obligation to regulate the airwaves in the public interest -- that is, in the interest of the American people, rather than the media monopolies that control our airwaves. The legal team welcomes the opportunity to have a court identify the real pirates of the airwaves -- not the thousands of microradio broadcasters who seek to communicate with the people of their communities, but rather the billionaire commercial interests that control the airwaves as if they own them. Is it General Electric, Westinghouse and the Disney Corporation that have the right to control local community radio, or is that a right that belongs to all of the American people, regardless of economic status? FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Peter Franck, Counsel for Amicus 415-415-995-5055 pfranck(a)hbmvr.com (days) pfranck(a)a.crl.com(evs, wknds) http://www.368Hayes.com/nlg.cdc.html Alan Korn, Counsel for Amicus 415-362-5700 aakorn(a)igc.org Stephen Dunifer, Free Radio Berkeley 415-644-3779 frbspd(a)crl.com http://www.freeradio.org Louis Hiken Counsel for Stephen Dunifer 415-575-3220 hiken(a)igc.org http://www.368Hayes.com Allen Hopper Counsel for Stephen Dunifer 415-575-3222 lazlo(a)igc.org http://www.368Hayes.com SEE THE FULL TEXT OF JUDGE WILKEN'S DECISION TO STEPHEN DUNIFER/FREE RADIO BERKELEY INFORMATION PAGE TO FREE RADIO BERKELEY LEGAL BATTLE PAGE TO NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD INFORMATION PAGE TO THE OFFICIAL NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD WEB SITE TO NLG COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS PAGE TO FREE RADIO BERKELEY WEB SITE BACK TO LAW OFFICES AT 368 HAYES STREET

1 0

HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek & 'Information'
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 03:59:29 EST Reply-To: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: GBRansom <GBRansom(a)AOL.COM> Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek & 'Information' To: HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU >> Hayek on the Web << "Knowledge at a Cost" by Virginia I. Postrel, editor of _Reason_ magazine, on the Web at: http://www.reasonmag.com/opeds/vpasap0695.html >From "Knowledge at a Cost": ".. The "information is free" school of thought also tends to assume that information magically appears in computer networks. But deciding what to record and how means negotiating among people with different needs and knowledge bases. The marketing department of a steel company, for instance, wants products classified by how they're used, while manufacturing wants them classified by how they're made. A health insurer studied by Elihu Gerson and Susan Leigh Star of the Tremont Research Institute had a five-person unit devoted to resolving conflicts over how to code medical procedures. Doctors, customers, and various internal departments disagreed about what criteria should determine the codes and how narrow the categories should be. Yet everyone had to use the same system. The unit's job was essentially diplomacy: getting the different groups to agree on coding guidelines. "Traditionally, finding solutions to information systems problems has been framed as...arriving at the 'correct answer' via algorithmic procedures," write Gerson and Star. But in this case, there is no single correct answer. "Rather, there are multiple, possibly inconsistent, competing answers, none of which has a unique claim to validity." Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, one of the earliest economic theorists of the role of knowledge, would have recognized the problem. Organizations overcome such difficulties through compromise and negotiation, or they break down. But society as a whole can avoid the "knowledge problem" only at the cost of stamping out individuality. In his classic 1945 essay, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," Hayek criticized economists who believed central planning would be simple. He wrote that "the knowledge...we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess." Those "bits" include not merely facts, but complex individual goals and preferences information that, by its very nature, can't be centralized. In our enthusiasm for the power of information technology, we would be foolish to forget its limitations. Information may be cheap, but knowledge still isn't free." A slightly shorter version of Postrel's article originally appeared in the June 5, 1995 issue of _Forbes ASAP_. Hayek on the Web is a regular feature of the Hayek-L list. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek & 'Information' (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:47:23 -0500 > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek & 'Information' > >> Hayek on the Web << > > "Knowledge at a Cost" by Virginia I. Postrel, editor of _Reason_ > magazine, on the Web at: > > http://www.reasonmag.com/opeds/vpasap0695.html > > >From "Knowledge at a Cost": > > ".. The "information is free" school of thought also tends to assume > that information magically appears in computer networks. It's "information wants to be free". A subtle but profound distinction. > Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, one of the earliest economic theorists > of the role of knowledge, would have recognized the problem. > Organizations overcome such difficulties through compromise > and negotiation, or they break down. But society as a whole > can avoid the "knowledge problem" only at the cost of stamping > out individuality. It's a real pitty Hayek never tried 'cooperation' instead of 'compromise'. Oh, the short-short sightedness of ego and tryanny. What is the line of reasoning that the *only* solution for society is to stamp out individuality? Sounds more like wishful thinking from some brain-dead drone with no imagination or respect for others. Perhaps he should have stuck with economics and kept away from sociology. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >Plea-bargaining = capitulation = self-censorship Now, Deft-Spinner Jim, you've switched from what we (you) did or did not do to what Jim did or did not do, which is what I was indelicately pointing out has been how we (you and me) self-censoringly plead our case for or against AP and USG, and thereby capitulate covertly while ineffectively protesting Jim's (and other terrorist targets') zap by USG-AP. And rightly so, what fool would want to take Jim's place, and that's what we're relieved to not be in, now that we've been shown an example. Chilled speech, it's called, finger-pointing about some fool going too far, and worse, getting caught. This time we're so pleased we didn't lose the lottery, as Shirley Jackson wrote, that we eagerly stone the winner, split some hairs, tut-tut, spin our fear and call it wisdom. Too bad that camouflaged cowardice (shrewdness) cahoots with IRS and Justice. Keep quiet about yourself, blame somebody else, luck may hold. That's what I'm doing, blaming wildly, hiding in a crowd of "we's" and now, thanks much, your equation for going along and getting ahead. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

1 0

Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:22:01 -0500 > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd) > Now, Deft-Spinner Jim, you've switched from what we (you) > did or did not do to what Jim did or did not do, which is what > I was indelicately pointing out has been how we (you and me) > self-censoringly plead our case for or against AP and USG, > and thereby capitulate covertly while ineffectively protesting > Jim's (and other terrorist targets') zap by USG-AP. Bullshit, your Burroughs-esk not withstanding. I believe Jim Bell's AP proposal is sheer insanity with no real merit other than clear and open endorsement of anarchy. I have always said this and will always say it. However, I *do* support his right to *talk* about it all he wants. When he or others begin to *act* upon it then I say do to them exactly what they are wanting to do to others - nail their hide to a wall. Violence has one and *only* one justification - immediate self-defence. His putting stink bombs in a federal building deserves some punishment. It is nothing more than a petty childish prank and should be treated as such. Bottem line with Jim Bell, he is a selfish child who refuses to grow up. Let him reap what he sows. The federal responce to this and other forms of civil disobedience are equealy without merit. My view: neither the feds or Jim Bell have two halves of a clue to rub together. > And rightly so, what fool would want to take Jim's place, and > that's what we're relieved to not be in, now that we've been > shown an example. Chilled speech, it's called, finger-pointing > about some fool going too far, and worse, getting caught. It certainly hasn't changed my beliefs or my plans to act on them one whit. The difference is that I believe the system can be fixed, yes it will take time, yes it will require a certain level of jamming unsavory morsels of the Constitution down some tyrants throats; but it is doable. Personaly, I would not plea bargain, I would not accept a court appointed attorney, I would claim political prisoner status, and further I would immediately appeal my conviction to the Supreme Court. I say this openly and in public in order to give the Feds one of two options: leave me alone and accept my civil disobedience for what it is or let's tango in the courts and let the supreme law of the land draw the lines in the sand. My faith in the strength of this country rests in the Constitution and the ideals it stands for. For a start: 1. I oppose the current tax laws. The Constitutional amendment was *never* legaly ratified and was never intended to make individual citizens pay 40% of their taxes to support the federal govt. 2. Agencies such as NOAA, FBI, BATF, NASA, etc. are not constitutional because there is *no* section of the Constitution that delegates those issues to the feds. Per the 10th they go to the states or the people unless an amendment is enacted. 3. The DoD is currently engaging in contracts that extend over the Constitutionaly mandated 2 year limit for anything other than naval forces. They also allow the use of military personnel and equipment by civil law enforcement - a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. 4. I oppose the extension of the inter-state commerce clause because regulation does not imply the level of law enforcement and the use of force that is currently employeed. I further object to the apparent skipping over of the last sentence of the inter-state commerce clause which clearly invokes the 9th and 10th. 5. The 14th Amendment does *not* extend *any* protection of rights to the states - only privileges and immunities. I further believe that such extension at the state level is a bad thing. 6. The fed's interest in doctor assissted suicides is misplaced. There is *no* mandate for this to be a federal issue. 7. The use of drugs is *not* mandated by the Constitution to be a federal issue. 8. The Constitution does not allow *any* seizing of private property, legaly or illegaly gained, without compensation to the owner of that property. 9. There is a whole raft of political party rules and regulations that limit the participation in government of many smaller organizations. These limits are un-Constitutional. If you or anyone else doesn't like the way it works then get an amendment passed that changes the way the rules operate. In short my main bitch is that the Supreme Court of the US doesn't say "Ain't our problem" nearly enough and when it does speak the question it should be asking is "Does the Constitution allow this power to the federal govt. within the constraints of the 9th and 10th?". Neither Congress or the Supreme Court act in a manner to honor either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution and in particular the 9th and 10th Amendments. I believe that *every* federal law and regulation *must* be able to demonstrate its lineage from one or more sentences in the Constitution before it is applicable and legal by the 10th. Personaly, I want to bring charges against Congress and the Supreme Court of the US for actions contrary to those granted them under the Constitution. In short, I want to impeach the whole kit and kaboodle. I also want to get an amendment passed such that representation in government is related to percentages of votes cast for individual parties and not the over all winning party of the votes counted. > Keep quiet about yourself, blame somebody else, luck may hold. I not only blame myself (as well as all citizens), but I expect to do something about it over the remainder of my life. I learned several lessons from Operation Sun Devil. The most important one was that if you compromise you loose. Phiber Optik and his ilk plea bargained and he went to jail. Mentor, Erik Bloodaxe, & Steve Jackson refused and they walk around free men to this day (it's interesting that these folks are all here in Austin). > That's what I'm doing, blaming wildly, hiding in a crowd of "we's" > and now, thanks much, your equation for going along and getting > ahead. > > Not that there's anything wrong with that. There's not? You sir, don't have one whit of morality, ethics, or empathy. Let alone any sort of sense of justice or liberty. I hope your happy licking the hands of your keepers. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Tell the fans, not the players
by Human Gus-Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jam Choke, ravaging the Young and wringing the Bell, wroted: > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd) > Now, is it not true that we've self-censored ourselves into believing > Jim is just a fool, rather than a gutsy guy willing to do what most > of us will not, instead preferring covert self-censorship over the > all-too-easily opposed group-think kind. Spin-doctor alert. No need to announce yourself, Jim. Your name is in the From: header. Jim Bell plea bargained period. Had he had one iota of the 'guts' you so blithely banter about the case would be going to trial. Plea-bargaining = capitulation = self-censorship Spoken like a free man... I've sat at a lot of border crossings 'psychically willing' my sweat back into the pores of my body. I've been pulled over by the Men in Black on dark roads late at night, within sight of the towers where the Iron Curtain is personified in a chambered round which serves as a local currency price-tag on free speech. I've sat in courtrooms in which justice was an unwanted intruder and mere mention of it caused the dogs of war to growl and bare their teeth. (e.g. 'Bell' County, Texas) I've waited for interminable hours while interrogators were being brought in from distant places to shake me up, down and sideways to find a small vulnerable spot that could be ripped open with the one-sided sword of dark authority. I know the tune Bell's persecutors were playing. It is a dark and scary tune most effective when played to an audience of one. Anyone who thinks that Jim was imprisoned in America is a fool. Jim was in a Gulag, in Auschwitz, in a sweat box in a distant jungle. Bell was the target of an insidious physical, mental and emotional attack threatening the most deep-seated human impetus of all--survival. The methods used against Bell are the same methods used by despotic regimes throughout history and by the mind-benders who serve them. I've been the target of wanna-be local Nazis and I've been the target of the real McCoys. The hands pulling the strings in Jim's case were not amateur. They were the same hands that have massaged the minds of prisoners of war, defectors, political prisoners and compromised spooks. Anyone who believes that Jim received his right to legal counsel is likewise a fool. The difference between Bell's attorney and McVeigh's attorney is that established heavyweights get paid $15 million to sleepwalk their client to a conviction. The lightweights get paid with future political favors. Bell was unconstitutionally imprisoned, drugged, and subjected to sensory deprivation torture as punishment for exercising his right to think and speak freely. Anyone who attempts to justify this with weak claims that Bell was 'asking for it' is also justifying McVeigh's counter-attack on the Waco murderers, who, for those of you who are paying attention, are continuing to 'ask for it.' The Sympatico AP-BOT received bets on the times of demise of even some of the lowliest government paperwork shufflers involved in Jim's case. The Netcom AP-Bot received belated bets on the times of demise of *all* of the government casualties in the OKC offensive. (Definitely a political statement...) Jim's political statement *has* made a difference in the implementation of, and experimentatin with, AP-BOTs. His persecution has made those steps both real and meaningful for the participants. There is currently an AP-BOT accessible from an Eternity Server which is serving as a test of the ability of underground InterNet activity to become widespread and remain covert and untouchable in its operation. (For each unit bet on the choice of the individual, it is *required* to generate an extra unit which is automatically used to bet on the demise of the Big Guy. This requirement is designed to take the exercise beyond the realm of being merely a 'fun game.') Anyone who easily dismisses Jim Bell as a 'loon' is probably not in great danger of dropping their dime. Wavy Gravy is a loon. The Smothers Brothers were loons. Lenny Bruce, Cheech and Chong, Timothy Leary, Babba Ram Das, Ginsberg, Kerouac, Guerva, Patton... They were all capble, to a different extent, of knowing when it was safe to relax their anus, and when it was unwise to do so. When the government puts your ass in a vice and makes keeping your cheeks tight a condition of loosening it, the decision to spit or sing, or merely to remain passive, is an individual decision. It does not increase my respect for anyone if they choose to use someone else's trials and tribulations as a stick to beat their own tough-guy drum. Just as there are no athiests in foxholes, there are no tough guys in Gulags. There are only survivors...and not all who leave alive are survivors. Plain and simple: Jim Bell is a political pri$oner of the men, women and children who steal your money at gunpoint. Jim Bell's human and civil rights were violated more over vague public speech involving those who control the money spigot than were those of Terry McNichols over the violent deaths of over a hundred citizens. God help us all if anyone ever bombs the Treasury. UncleMonger

1 0

Re: Where is the c-p traffic?
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12 Dec 97 at 22:48, Jim Choate wrote: > > Am I the only one to notice that traffic has dropped from about 100 > > messages/day to only a few? > You are getting *lots* of bounces if you were getting anything > like 100 messages per day. You're right. My number was high. On actual count, heavy days ran to 40-70 while light days varied all over the lower landscape. Pardon me all to hell for being EIGHTEEN BILLION ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE OFF, putz. Is 70 "anything like 100?" Or is it that _you_ have been missing the majority of list traffic and think c-p is a low-volume list, hmmm? Wouldn't that be choice? I suppose the other mail in my twice-daily 50-or-so message downloads _could_ have been the replies from heads of state and other annoyance mail I get. With so many filters for spam and high list noise it's difficult to keep track, but I'm accustomed to seeing more than 10 messages a day from this list. Seeing the c-p traffic drop to 10-15 messages per day for a few days caused me to suspect something might have been wrong. Nothing ever goes wrong, though, does it? Silly me! > > Does anyone know what is broken? > > At this point either your arithmetic or your memory. Either > way, it sounds like a personal problem. You're _so_ helpful! Courteous, too! I'll bet you have a lot of really good, close friends -- you know, the kind who wouldn't tell you if your hair is on fire. > > Does anyone care? Is the whole c-p list a giant MITM being run > > against a very few of us who are the only human participants? > > Damn, found out. Yeah, yeah. Your punishment in the afterlife will be to discover that this whole universe was really just a simulation to provide window dressing around the amusing Jim Choate personality module and to endure an eternity of junior high school students playing your own most embarrassing moments back into your trapped consciousness and watching the Squirm-o-Meter peg. Those private bathroom moments will no doubt win a lot of laughs. _I_ can be nasty when it's called for, but you're just plain ol' bitter. > > Isn't it odd that many key contributors to the list coincidentally > > live near nondescript neighborhood houses that bristle with > > antennae and are regularly visited by black helicopters and large > > unmarked vans? No, I didn't think so either. That's probably an > > unrelated operation. > Just exactly what kind of drugs are you taking? There is a > house rule you *must* bring enough for everyone. Yours have apparently accomplished a chemical humorectomy. That whooshing sound you hear is the humor flying like a U-2 over your head. Twisted humor, to be sure, but humor. In any case the house rule doesn't benefit you. Your severe swings preclude further ad hoc medication. > No helicopters, vans, jack-booted thugs, or anything else > around here dude. Get a grip! I'll bet you thought MIB was a pseudo documentary produced by the UFO crowd, huh? > Don't know about an opinion, a paranoia induced > hallucination for sure. Go back to your machines. They're humorless, too, except when one lets the blue smoke leak out just to piss you off. You know about the blue smoke, don't you? It's the essential ingredient that they seal into all electronic gadgets at the factory. If it ever leaks out, the gadget stops working. BlueSmokeMongerII

1 0

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:30 AM 12/13/97 GMT, you wrote: > >Am I the only one to notice that traffic has dropped from about 100 >messages/day to only a few? Does anyone know what is broken? >Does anyone care? Is the whole c-p list a giant MITM being run >against a very few of us who are the only human participants? it's the digital implants digital imprants digitar imprints dogatell impunts

1 0

Airlines demanding SS #'s???
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 at 08:12:31 -0600 Human Gus-Peter wrote: > The government misuses my Social Security Number to steal > my money. Where do I press charges? Can I place airline > employees under citizen's arrest when they demand it? Excuse ME? When did THIS begin?

4 3

Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: A pretty convincing manifesto, as far as Constitution-thumping goes. And then, empowered by righteousness, fire-and-brimstoned: >You sir, don't have one whit of morality, ethics, or empathy. >Let alone any sort of sense of justice or liberty. > >I hope your happy licking the hands of your keepers. Damn tooting, Jim, my babe is sweetest licking and being his love slave is a pleasure. And for it, I eagerly forego morality, ethics, empathy, justice and liberty along with constitutional and biblical protection. Babe's my blackhearted PO, with two years to release. Damn, Jim, have you never lost it all where every which way was up? If not, then you don't know shit about Jim's situation, or mine, sweetheart, and whose balls you'll lick to get back to zero, not even hoping you'll get back to where you were before insane vanity took you and those who trusted you over the edge to irreversible loss and despair. Sorry to say that "Constitutional protections" might do that to you, Jim, for they are sometimes finger-licking nose-candy, bad shit that's pushed by a nasty gang of predators as morality, ethics, empathy, justice and liberty along with biblical protection. They, and other holy writs, have got a lot of innocents wasted for addictive righteousness of hustlers who use perfect grammar to hide evil. Just kidding, son, you're okay, don't EMR me. Zap my literary inchoate.

1 0

Re: HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 at 11:29:25 -0600 (CST) Jim Choate once again showed his clueless side (yes, he does have another side) wrote: >> Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, one of the earliest economic >> theorists of the role of knowledge, would have recognized >> the problem. Organizations overcome such difficulties >> through compromise and negotiation, or they break down. >> But society as a whole can avoid the "knowledge problem" >> only at the cost of stamping out individuality. > It's a real pitty Hayek never tried 'cooperation' instead > of 'compromise'. It's a real pity Choate never tried reading before spewing. It would appear poor Jim doesn't have a clear idea of Hayek, and has difficulty distinguishing between any of the several voices used, and in filling in thin context. This is another case like Jim's confusion over which "Gates" Tim was referring to in a recent post. > Oh, the short-short sightedness of ego and tryanny. Well, ego anyway. > What is the line of reasoning that the *only* solution for > society is to stamp out individuality? Sounds more like > wishful thinking from some brain-dead drone with no > imagination or respect for others. Sounds like you should do some reading before you mouth off. > Perhaps he should have stuck with economics and kept away > from sociology. Perhaps you should have stuck with programming and kept away from political commentary. Scratch that -- programming requires a high degree of ability to deal with reality as it is, not as one mistakenly sees it. Your assignment is to read The Road to Serfdom and submit a 5,000 word essay to the c-p list on the subject of Hayek, the brain-dead drone. Following that you will be allowed to submit a 20,000 word essay on Jim Choate, the often-clueless and illiterate half-wit motor mouth. GetALifeMongerII

1 0

IRS intimidation of Cypherpunks
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 at 08:12:31 -0600 Human Gus-Peter wrote: >>> We should not let distaste/disgust for Jim's ideas and >>> tactics blind us to the important legal and constitutional >>> questions lurking beneath the surface of this investigation >>> and prosecution - there's some possibility that the IRS >>> used its investigation of Jim as a threat to other prolific >>> authors on the Internet. > The government's armed assault on Ma and Pa Bell's > residence took place within hours of an email being sent > to him containing a rough draft of a chapter of an InterNet > published manuscript describing and lauding Bell's AP system. >>> For example, copies of the press release announcing the >>> raid on Jim's home were mailed, apparently from computer >>> systems inside the IRS, to individuals active on the >>> Cypherpunks list. The IRS has never before (or since) >>> bothered to notify those individuals about criminal >>> investigations which might otherwise be of interest. > It is interesting to note that the emails from > treasury.gov constituted the same type of 'threat' that > Bell was roundly accused of by government officials and > the press. I've seen brief mention of this before, but have never seen any details on the list. Aside from Jim Choate questioning my arithmetic or attention span, would anyone be kind enough to provide pointers to information about incidents of c-p list members having received unsolicited email from .gov? Declan, did you catch a whiff of this when it happened? I would think everyone's alarm bells would have gone off and people would have been intensely interested in the messages themselves, particularly the headers. StringPullMongerII

4 3

Bell sentencing
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the charges of intimidating an IRS agent are felonies the stinkbomb charge in a federal building is a felony the tax evasion charges are felonies virtually all federal felonies start with 5 years and increase from there. federal misdemeanors have a sentence limitation of 1 year less 1 day. under the sentencing guidelines, it is difficult for the judge to hand down less than the specified guideline unless a deal has been cut --big time, I would say in this case. the prosecutor and public defender agreed on one year, but probation and parole asked for two years -therefore the plea bargained charge was a felony. secondly, the Feds almost always file the charge itself, plus a separate charge of conspiracy (even if they do call the rest of the conspirators "unknown") which carries the same time as the act of commission. you can rack up some serious time with Fed charges which do not seem like much until they multiple count the indictment and add conspiracy. given the exposure of this case, etc. there was a deal cut someplace. frankly, I would rather do 3 years inside instead of "highly supervised" tail --some asshole social worker cum parole officer that can literally tell you when you can shit; if he tells you to start polishing the apple, you best be getting on your knees and get on with it. you have more rights in federal prison than you do with a PO and his inferiority or dogooder complex --either way, you are his victim. personally, I think Bell was lucky --or he rolled over and the fruits of his loose tongue will start new lives for new political prisoners of the U.S. gestapo. I'll put my money on the rollover. too many unanswered questions; books returned marked "not a prisoner"; writing a letter acknowledging he was a "bad person"; and all that good stuff. Bell just snitched out; he doesn't look like the type that would do well under pressure. maybe a lot of bark, but no bite to tell the man to fuck off. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQBVAwUBNJSp2rR8UA6T6u61AQHsOAH9GXK+cHv91438Cmr9INsDCCEIbpWL9YO6 HDsWygSXSIWftoQl0+SFUL7/6mcjPlxt7N5nTlCub4zA0JQZYEHq2w== =GPPA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part I of II
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Note: This is a two-part article I posted to the "Nym" list. I'm posting it here as well, but not in a "cross-post" form, because it obviously touches on many themes of interest to Cypherpunks. Declan M. has created this new list to discuss anonymity and pseudonyms. It is, predictably, largely duplicative of discussions on the Cypherpunks and other lists, but Declan and others feel it is needed. It is not necessarily open to all, to reduce the number of insults, ASCII art posts, drunken ramblings (mine excepted), and off-topic spams and such, so don't ask _me_ for instructions on how to subscribe to it. Declan may send you instructions if he wants to, of course.] [The second part will follow this part] There are many swirling notions of anonymity here, and a bunch of what I think are misconceptions about the link between anonymous systems and "accountability." Some here believe accountability (which I'll define and discuss in more detail below) is important enough to take precedence over a "right to anonymity." I think this is confusing some important issues. First some observations: * The norm in most interactions is a very loose amount of formal checks of identity credentials. Most of us never actually check the credentials of our friends and associates. Most commercial transactions, and most travels, involve no identity credentials whatsoever. (A point nicely make my Marc Rotenberg today.) * However, as we have repeated dealings with people, on lists or in person, we begin to establish a "sense of identity" for those persons, a repeated history. This has nothing _formally_ to do with identity credentials, but much to do with _expectations_ about the future. Thus, in my several years of dealing with "Black Unicorn" I have come to view him (or her, or it) as a persistent personna. Whether or not he truly is one person, and whether I know his (alleged) True Name, is largely unimportant. * It is very important that even we non-lawyers keep in mind what a _contract_ is. A contract is an offer, and an acceptance. Whether a True Name is part of the offer, by any of the parties, is unimportant. (In terms of enforceability of the contract, in terms of going after parties who fail to meet the terms of a contract, some measure of identity may of course help accountability. But this is epiphenomenol to the basics of the contract...it's just a matter of convenience.) * Hence the view many of us have that if Alice and Bob interact, they may or may not use fake names, nicknames, handles, putative True Names, or even DNA-verified biological markers. Their call. * In cases where accountability is Very Important, as in purchases of large ticket items, the usual method is to use strict title search companies, specialists in tracking actual records. Title companies, in other words. (And, even then, proofs of identity are less extreme than many anti-anonymity advocates might think. In the purchase of three homes, I've only had to "flash" my state-issued I.D. card. In fact, it was a driver's license, hardly designed as an actual proof of identity. Of course, there are certain ontological assumptions about identity in such large-ticket purchases, such as that I.D. is backed up by other things, including possession of a title deed.) * The main question that involves Washington (or other lawmakers) is this: Under what circumstances may the state compell identity to be produced? I happen to agree with several on this list, including E. Volokh and (actually) D Brin, that there are cases where identity can be compelled. Even if it only means a _sworn statement_ (as in "making an X" on a statement written by others). Applying for a passport, appearing before court, perhaps driving on the public roads. But note that there absolutely is no requirement in the United States for a general form of identification. Non-drivers need not have any form of I.D. And as we have seen in court cases, a la Lawson v. Kolender (where a black man in dreadlocks used to like to walk the streets of San Diego...the cops stopped him many times and jailed him for not having I.D. on him...the court ruled that people don't have to present credentials issued by the state to walk the public streets). * Therefore, the issue is not of a "right to anonymity," which would probably be as nebulous to debate as the "right to privacy" (which Bork probably was correct in saying cannot be found in the Constitution), but, rather, the issue of when the State may compell identity. To put it in the blunt terms we libertarians find useful: "When can men with guns tell us we have to produce a piece of paper with our pictures on it that they find acceptable?" Possibly for the situations I mentioned above. But maybe not even in all of those situations. (Next time I am called for jury duty, and my last time was in 1973, I plan to take no state-issued I.D. junk with me...I will _tell_ them who I am and leave it at that.) * In ordinary interactions and in commercial transactions (modulo gun purchases and a few other similar areas), identity cannot be compelled. Alice is free to ask Bob for his name, or his blood type, or anything else she chooses (modulo questions banned by the Civil Rights Act, disgustingly enough), and either is free to cancel the interaction or transaction as they wish. Contracts again: an offer made and an acceptance. * Now if Alice wishes to _extend credit_ to Bob, or take his promise to pay via a check or some other "delayed clearing" instruement, she is free to request various things that will satisfy her that she can later track down Bob and collect from him. Importantly, this is not a _state_ function. This is still a matter of contract. Bob is of course free to refuse to give his name and to cancel the transaction. * It's a fact that most vendors (Alice) are less interested in acquiring market research data by getting True Names than they are in selling stuff. Hence, most merchants don't care about True Names. And for online clearing (instant clearing, as with cash or guaranteed payments sytems), names really don't matter. Even Radio Shack, which makes a big point of asking for names and addresses, will gladly make a sale to those who refuse to go along. * There are cases where this normal "Alice doesn't care about names" situation is distorted by other considerations. Recently, airlines have been instructed by the FAA to do a credential check...they are happy enough to comply, as it cuts down on the practice of companies buying advance tickets in bulk and then deciding later who will actually use the tickets. (I believe the pre-FAA ruling situation, where airlines didn't bother to check I.D.s to be a good indicator of what free market forces would produce absent such an FAA rule.) Certain large-ticket purchases may no longer be made in cash. Part of this is the move to control money-laundering and smurfing, and the "structuring" laws. Black Unicorn has an amusing story of trying to buy a car in suburban Washington, with cash (or a cashier's check, I forget which), and having law enforcment arrive a short time later and hold him for questioning.... Likewise, it's becoming more common for motels and hotels to demand photo I.D. Some even refuse to accept cash without a credit card (which we know is not an actual I.D., but it sort of acts as one). I'm not sure what all the reasons for this are. Here are some, briefly: fear of being stung by someone who trashes the room, concern about being charged with enabling prostitution, pressure from regulatory boards (who may be pressured by law enforcement), or perhaps just the general attitude that "I.D. is required." (As I've said, this attitude hasn't filtered down to ordinary daily transactions.) So, identity is not the same as accountability (though there are some correlations). And lack of identity does not mean criminality. And most importantly, most cases where some proof of identity is requested don't need any state involvement in what are private transactions or contracts. Lastly, there is no "is-a-person" (in the cryptographic sense) credentialling system in the U.S. In Part II of this post, I'll combine these various points, made somewhat anecdotally here, into a more graphical form. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article (U.S. Statute 43-666-970719). Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense, and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself not contain material in violation of the Act. ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** : Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh? --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article. **SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years

4 5

Identity, Persistence, Anonymity, and Accountability--Part II ofII
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As promised, here is Part II, with a more graphical analysis of the issues of identity, anonymity, traceability, accountability, and the correlations between them. Consider two principles axes: -- identity -- accountability A "0" on the identity axis means a complete lack of any identity, with no assurance whatsoever in the nickname, casual name, and certainly not in the True Name, of an entity. The canonical "Anonymous," with not even any clues as to identity. A "1" on the identity axis means a complete certainty as to whom someone is, with extensive credentials, perhaps even voiceprint, blood tests, etc. An appearance by Bill Clinton probably rates a "0.999" on this scale, as various input vectors are summed...most of my posts might be rated at "0.95," and so on. There are some meta-issues about what true names really are. Was Bill Clinton switched at birth? Did the Trilateral Commission actually kill the real Bill Clinton when he was at Oxford and replace him with a KGB lookalike? Do his footprints match that on the birth certificate on file in the Arkansas hospital? Is that stuff even what we mean by "that guy is Bill Clinton"? I won't get into these meta-issues here, but they are eventual boundary-value problems for any "is-a-person" formal system. On the "accountability" axis, a "0" means an entity cannot be held accountable. Cannot be reached, cannot be hauled into court, etc. This could be because the entity is outside a jurisdiction. Marc Rich, resident of Zug, Switizerland, is about a "0.1" on the accoutability scale. A "1" obviously represents full accountability. Clearly it is possible for someone to be high on the identity scale (like Marc Rich), but low on the accountability scale. Or, more interestingly, it is possible for a participant in a transaction to be essentially anonymous, but very accountable. This is what digital cash and anonymous escrow systems provide. Chaum's "credentials without identity" makes this clear. It is possible to present some credential for some property, such as age, without identity. (An easy to see example being admissions to bars...as ID scanning technology spreads, we would like to see methods for checking an age credential without also creating a computer record of all bars visited, number of drinks consumed, etc.) (Crime and illegal markets often work this way, too. That is, with identity not necessarily known ("Vinnie the Nose"), but with other mechanisms for ensuring accountability. The usual, but important, stuff about reputation capital. Ditto for primitve markets, with goods left in clearings...absolutely no "identity," but various mechanisms for enforcement of trading protocols (including "no future business if you screw me," which is how many markets have worked, a la the Law Merchant for international trade, which evovled into the Uniform Commercial Code.) OK, here's a diagram. Notice that the central diagonal, the "main sequence" ( a la Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams) is the correlation between "identity" and "accountability." To those who argue that accountability IS identity, this is there line. But there are many other place in this space. For ease (to me) in making this diagram, I've had to just use letters, with the legend below the diagram. ^ CASH TOTAL 1 | CHAUM | ESCROW ^ | BRIN | | DIGNYM | | CORP Accountability | | | MRICH | | ANON 0 |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 1 Identity --> CASH = immediate clearing, but no identity CHAUM = Chaumian "credentials without identity" (in many forms) ESCROW = leaving a deposit, or linking to another payer (an anonymous VISA card, with a deposit, works this way. Or a corporate account, card, etc., where the company backs the transaction, but identity of the participant is unknown, or poorly known) BRIN = David Brin's "accountability means identity" mapping (no doubt there are nuances to his view, but I believe this fairly characterizes the position he has described here recently) TOTAL = The total state. Eveyone in their place, every transaction logged, everyone held accountable by the State DIGNYM = Digital pseudonyms, or signed messages. Identity may be variable, from almost completely anonymous (e.g., Pr0duct Cypher) to known to some (e.g., Black Unicorn). Accountability also varies, depending on factors like jurisdiction. CORP = corporate, or collective, accounts, where identity of actual participants is poorly known, but accountability is high MRICH = identity known to high certainty, but "judgment proof" (note that this applies to many other persons, such as poor persons, who may say all kinds of libelous or actionable things, but who are not worth going after) ANON = the canonical "anonymous" message, with no identity, no accountability. Of course, there are many other examples. And each examples has "scatter." Each is a "blob," not just a point. And they can move around, as laws change. (For example, Marc Rich could quickly become "accountable" were Switzerland to change its laws about extradition.) The structure of this identity-accountability space is itself interesting, with peaks and valleys (suggesting a third axis, that of "cost" to live in these spaces....). And so on. I hope this helps clarify for you some of my thinking on these issues. i find that simplistic arguments, whether, "accountability requires identity," or "anonymity is a basic right," are not very helpful. There are clearly times when participants in a voluntary transaction want some kind of "identity credential" (especially to the extent they think identity = accountability). There may even be times when the State has a legitimate interest in compelling identity (though many of us would quibble with most such demands, and look for ways to satisfy these "is-a-person" needs less invasively than by requiring national I.D. cards and tattooes on forearms). Again, I hope this has helped. --Tim May Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article (U.S. Statute 43-666-970719). Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense, and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself not contain material in violation of the Act. ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** : Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh? --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article. **SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years

1 0

Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Phillip M. Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> wrote: > >>FC folk may find this interesting. What Jim Bell was charged >>with and admitted was planning and executing attacks on the >>IRS. > >No, that's not correct. He was charged with (and plead guilty to) >obstructing an IRS agent (26 USC 7212(a)) and misuse of a Social Security >number (42 USC 408). The "attack" he admitted to executing consisted of >applying a stinky chemical to the doormat of an IRS office. (see ><http://jya.com/jimbell-dock4.htm> for more.) Actually I was entirely correct. He had already executed a non-lethal attack and there was considerable evidence to suggest he was planning something more lethal in future. >>His 'Assasination Politics' essay was used to demonstrate >>motive (amongst other things). > >That doesn't make any sense - it could conceivably have been introduced to >demonstrate intent, or state of mind .. but not motive, at least in the Read the essay, he quite clearly states his reason for wanting to see IRS agents murdered. >But it's misleading to say that the essay was used to "demonstrate" >anything, as it was never introduced into evidence - there was no trial. He plead guilty, to lesser charges. That does not mean he gets the benefit of the doubt. He was clearly a loon and quite probably would have killed someone sooner or later. Phill

2 1

Re: IRS intimidation of Cypherpunks
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

bureau42 Anonymous Remailer wrote: >would anyone be kind enough >to provide pointers to information about incidents of c-p >list members having received unsolicited email from .gov? See the IRS spam at: http://jya.com/irs-spam.htm And the 7 headers of 19 spams, titled "Death to Tyrants" and "Something of Interest" sent to various persons at: http://jya.com/irs-header.txt I recall that Declan offered to ask IRS about the spam, but do not recall if he was successful.

1 0

Gates of Hell
by Jenaer Mixmaster Anonserver 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd always wondered how Bill Gates could shit with that pole so far up his ass. Then I realized: The pole is too long to be completely embedded in his ass and he uses the other half of it to rape computer users everywhere on a regular basis. And since the pole is crammed in his ass he can't shit, so he just retains his shit, making him incredibly anal retentive. I'm sure he enjoys this.

1 0