December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

ebanking - What's up with that?
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Anyone got a pointer other than the CNN article on the announcement by Excite Inc. and Bank One about their offering a full line of banking services online? I'd be interested in anything on the particulars of the services and he protocols they intend to impliment. Danke. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 00:06:22 +1000 > From: Reeza! <howree(a)cable.navy.mil> > Subject: Re: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed > Notice how, in each of the amendments below, the 1st is the only one with > the text "congress shall make no law". > > This is implied, understood to be implied, accepted as implied and supreme > court ruled to be implied as applicable to each of the rest of the bill of > rights, and later to the amendments, wherein it is not so specified as in > the 1st. > > A large part of the reason that 2 thru 10 and the rest do not include that > phrase is to prevent the states from doing the very thing that congress was > and is prohibited from. Read the 10th again you don't understand what it is saying. It *specificaly* says that unless the Constitution assigns it to the feds *or* prohibits it then the states are *exactly* the ones that are able to do what Congress is prohibited from doing. The states are limited by their own consititions which are guaranteed to be representative in nature. The states absolutely have the right to regulate gun laws (as in the Texas constitution) provided they don't infringe (what part of shall not do you not understand) on the actual possession. Licenses and background checks at the state level are absolutely constitutional. State regulation on speech, press, etc. are also completely constitutional as well. And is where such regulation should take place. If you don't like your states laws move to one you do like. That's what it means to live in a democracy, freedom of choice - not homogeneity (on this point ol' Alex was wrong, wrong, wrong). ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED THU NOV 12 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + NAUGHTY LADY + PORN MIX + SEXY BLACK BABES + VERTICAL SMILES + WILD WORLD OF SEX + 4 PUSSY + ADULT WEB CIRCUShttp://www.znd2.net/karpo/AAA/ + SEX HAPPY + HORNY HEATHER'S CUM SHOTS + JACK'S HOUSE OF SLUTS + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/3843.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/3985.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/25033.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/27786.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/12878.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

Cylink Sued for Stock Fraud
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Business Wire reported yesterday that Cylink has been sued in US District Court of New Jersey for securities fraud through a class action. It alleges misrepresentation and false financial statements. http://jya.com/cylink-suit.htm On November 5 Cylink announced revised revenues for the first half of 1998. The day before William Crowell, ex-NSA, was appointed president in a house sweep of the executive team, apparently after discovery of book cooking. William Perry, ex-DoD, is still listed on the board of directors, although the list seems to be out of date, along with the annual report and letter to stockholders on Cylink's Web site.

2 1

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:49:23 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > And the system protects them. Pinochet wasn't handed over to spain > now was he. > > It's the system. No, it's the British system. And to be honest it should be the American system also. A country should have jurisdiction only within its own borders. Other countries should have agreements about how persons accussed of crimes should be extradited. In the anarcho-whatever system this is all eliminated because we've eliminated crime in the first place by legitimizing any and all strategies. > In N.C, Tennesee (IIRC), Illinois, and North Carolina (especially > N.C.) it's the state. Then have the law changed in those states or you could move to Texas. > Crap. Pure B.S. What lead to it's regulation was a bunch of broads > who didn't want ANYONE drinking, so they pushed for abolition, which was a > total disaster, and lead to repeal. No, that was prohibition. The taxation of alcohol goes back equaly far in the history of this country. To before the articles of confederation even since Britian required taxes on rum and related items - espcialy if they were from non-British ports - if you would stop knee-jerking responces and think back the Tax Acts were one of the reasons we had a revolution in the first place. Tea, rum, and whiskey were one of the primary motivations. > Ever heard of "Muckraking"? Yellow Journalism? Could it have been > that that lead to some of this B.S. regulation? Nah, the press never would > have done something like that. Actualy, the fact that you admit that the press can be in colussion with the government and the businesses goes a long way toward demonstrating that anarcho-anything won't work because it will be even harder for whistle-blowers and 'social do-gooders' to get their message out (unless they're well heeled and don't mind loosing it all in the process). > Remember the movie "Reefer Madness", and the Jim Crow drug laws of > the early 1900's? Couldn't be that people in positions of power at the time > had certain agendas and used lies to further them could it. People always have agenda's (this is segues nicely into what Blanc was saying about attitudes), that's my point and one of the reasons that anarcho-whatever won't work is because it doesn't recognize this nor does it put any sort of limit on its expression. > Nah, people in government NEVER behave like that. People always behave that way, it's the way people are. Being in government is only another mechanism it gets expressed through. Business is another. > No I didn't, EVEN IF I GET THEM LEGALLY, if I turn around and sell > them, it's black market, that was muy fucking point, I'm sorry if you can't > comprehend that sort of thing. If the doctor gives them to you without a valid medical reason then you didn't get them legaly. Techicaly the doctor is in violation for trafficking and you would be in violation for possession and use of a controlled substance. If you knew full well that you weren't going to use them and took them anyway then you in effect stole them because you misled the doctor into giving them to you. Now if you simply sold them because you didn't like their side effects then only you are legaly culpible. Now, your point that not everything on the black market is stolen is well take as I've said before (you just didn't read it, it at least explains why you keep going over the same issue until you think I'll be badgered into agreeing with you). The exception I take, and am still waiting for refuation of, is that the *majority* of goods on the black market including drugs are related to the theft of material or services from legitimate parties. That you don't seem to grasp (and I'm not so obsessed with making you see it that I'm going to discuss the issue farther). As a history teacher once said: The nice thing about America is anybody can believe anything, whether they know what they are talking about or not. I respect that sentiment. > I hated the shit, and didn't take it after the 2nd day, leaving me > clear headed, but in pain. No big deal, I've been in pain before. I traded > the rest of those drugs for an old computer. I certainly hope that no DEA agents are watching *and* you're not in the US. Admitting to a crime in a public venue, whether in a public park or a mailing list isn't the brightest strategy. If you're not in the US you should probably hope that the NSA (or whomever) is too busy to pass along this to the requisite authorities. I would suggest strongly that for future such public admission you should use a pseudonym or an anonymous remailer. > Either way, my point is still that the black market is about more > than just if the _product_ is illegal, it also relates to the trade. It has to do with something being illegal or not acceptable otherwise you could just open up a store and start trading the items directly. In the vast majority of cases it involves the theft of services or property from the valid rights holder. > Yeah, like anyone really knows for sure. Well that pretty much shoots a hole in your point as well if that is your position. However, since the manufature of vehicles is accounted far to at least the 10's place by auto manufacturers and the sale of legitimate cars is traceable through tax and title I'd say that it is possible to make educated guesses about the scale of the market. > Because I know a lot of people who've bought drugs, and for the > most part it was with money they earned or receieved thru legal means. No, you know some people who have bought drugs, just as I do. However, claiming that the small set you know of personaly qualifies as a lot is an invalid hyperbole. There are millions of drug users in this country, and in your entire life you've only met a few thousand at best. > Your question is ignorant and irrelevant, but to answer it: Brokers. Oh, you mean fences... > I have something to sell, but I don't want to hassle with finding a > buyer. Joe has a lot of connections, but no goods to sell, and you are a > buyer. I let joe know I have product, he makes the deal, and I hire Omar to > deliver it to you. Joe never even sees the merchandise, but is effectively > the seller. You have to have possession in order to pass possesion to Joe so that he can sell it and pass you possession of the receipted funds (minus Joe's cut). Whether that possession is measured in immediate physical control (ie in your pants pocket) or more general (eg stored in a rent-room under an assumed name) is irrelevant. There is also the fact that if you don't produce the item(s) at some point Joe is likely to take his frustration out on you because you tried to take him and his money. The fact that you can produce them is clear evidence that at some point they were in your possession. How many middle-men is between there is irrelevant, since you are driving it and paying the costs you are in possession. > No, and for you to even say it in that manner is complete > disingenious. Your the one who said shoot them, what's the matter find your baby to ugly to look at? You and I are having and "inter-personal dispute", and would > never suggest that you be shot for disagreeing with me. Nor would I if, Yeah, well unless you can convince everyone that anarcho-whatever will also convince the Kennedy boys, OJ, et ali. then it's pretty irrelevant since it will occur whether you or I are involved and the issue is that it occurs, not that you or I are involved. I suspect that the emotionaly challenged will continue to shoot each other irrespective of the political system implimented. If you take guns away they'll knife each other and if you take knives away they'll beat each other to death. Which raises an interesting point, more people are killed by physical assault according to the FBI crime stats than guns each year. > say, we had a car accident and were resolving that (unless you had done > something like driving drunk and blatantly violating common sense rules of > the road like running a stop sign or a red light, in which case you are a > threat to me and others). Ah, I see. So your position is that if somebody runs a stop light then that is grounds to shoot them. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
by Michael Hohensee 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Albert P. Franco, II wrote: > > >> Without some government the Bad Guys will be the only ones with anything. > >> It is only with the threat of losing their power that leaders do good. If > >> they had no power which could be lost or taken they will always do what's > >> best for them in the short term, which is usually to shit on the peons. > >> Dictators (like Pinochet and Gates) do their dirty deeds because they feel > >> no need to placate the masses. > > > >If they wield no real power, and proceed to do whatever is best for them > >in the short term, they will be screwing themselves over in the long > >term (or short term, if doing what they want results in someone shooting > >them in self defense). > > > > I re-read my original sentence and it seems that your interpretation is > possible. I would like to clarify that the power I refer to is only that > part of their power which might be lost or threatened. Clearly if they have > no power they can't lose it. I want to say that if some or all of their > power could be placed in jeopardy they would tend to better behaved. Why do > you suppose Clinton spent so much time licking everybodys' boots and > repeatedly embellishing his "apologies" to the "public". But how can you plausibly threaten the power of he who has the most power? That would imply that a greater power exists -if so, how do we control those who wield *it*? Checks and balances don't work if those in power aren't willing to check others in power (because, for example, they're on the same side). > >And precisely what dirty deeds has Mr. Gates ever done? Excluding those > >actions in which the judicious use of state regulation was involved. > > You obviously think that anything goes in business. Frankly Gates is a > perfect example of why you anarcho-BS is doomed to failure. He will do > anything (and has) he can to be the only player in every market he touches. So? As long as he doesn't initiate force against anyone, I see no reason why he should be physically prevented from doing what he does. I dislike the way he operates, but neither I nor anyone else has the right to initiate force upon him to stop him, so long as he doesn't initiate force himself. My solution to the problematic behavior of Mr. Gates is not to patronize him wherever possible, to within a certain level of convienience. For example, I do not run MS software on my system --it sucks compared to Linux. Other people hate microsoft even more, and actively work against it. These people either work for competing companies, agitate the public to shun microsoft, or write good open source software, in an attempt to remove microsoft's market. > He has destroyed otherwise perfectly good businesses and products just to > increase his profits. He has violated workers rights to increase his > profit. How? What rights have been violated? Did he at any time initiate force against any of these workers? Did he hire soldiers to storm into competitors' offices to murder and destroy everyone and everything? If he has, I certainly haven't heard of it. I suspect that any "rights" which you think have been "violated" turn out to be non-rights, if you're anything other than a socialist. (which you may very well be --in which case, you'd be irrational and very good at doublethink, making intelligent argument futile) > In short he has demonstrated that if you let him murder wouldn't be > to far a step to reach his goals. I do not agree with this appraisal, and do not care, as long as he doesn't initate force, or use the state to initate force. Until then, he has as much right to do what he does as you have to do whatever it is that you do. > He is the monster that proves that your ideas are actually very very old > (caveman days) and are doomed by progress and civilization. Injecting > capitalism (investment oriented markets) into barbarism doesn't change the > fact that it is still barbarism, which in facts negates the ability to have > investment oriented markets, or capitalism. Who would invest if someone > with a gun could come and take it without out fear of retribution. But my point all along is that anyone who takes a gun and tries to take something *is* likely to face retribution --either from those he steals from, or from others who don't wish to be robbed by him. This retribution can take many forms, ranging from death, to ostracism, to a lowering of his reputation, depending upon how severe his crime was. You just haven't been reading what I've been saying, have you? > >> years, then how the hell do think you can convince somebody that the people > >> are going to be able to control warlords and monopolies. It's called, "You > >> don't like it? Bang, Bang, you're dead!" > > > >Yah, and then somebody else points a gun at Mr. would-be warlord and > >goes Bang, Bang, he's dead (it's unsafe having warlords about --sorta > >like scorpions). That is, if Mr. would-be manages to shoot me without > >being shot himself. > > > > And so everybody's so busy shooting each other that nobody is investing, > and I have to ask, "What happened to the capitalism part of > anarcho-capitalism?" Such events would be rare, since it's pretty easy for all parties concerned to figure out the likely result of such an exchange. Mr. would-be-warlord will probably not act on his desires, since he knows that it would at best drop his reputation through the floor, and at worst, result in his death. Unless of course, he's a real lunatic -in which case, he'd have gone out and attacked someone anyway. It's actually better this way. At least we don't have to worry about intelligent would-be-warlords manipulating the state to do their dirty work for them. In sum, the possibility of getting killed tends to put a damper on the would-be-warlord population. > >> Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at > >> least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting > >> anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure > >> it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then > >> come back and tell us. > > > >It hasn't happened yet. But then, neither had the USA, before 1776. > >The above is not a reasonable argument. > > WRONG!!!! Parliaments and representative governments did exist in somewhat > other forms. 1776 was NOT a revolution it was evolution. It comes from > among other things the Magna Carta of England as well as many other > concepts astutely compiled by the "forefathers". Ok, then think of it this way. Instead of having one big, centralized state, where orders are given from on high, and are thus frequently inequitous to lowly individuals, let's go for a more evenly distributed model. Let's carry this distribution to the point where everyone governs himself and his property. Previous attempts at such things would have failed, since humaity lacked communications systems which were fast enough to link such a system together. Previous forms of government all reflect this fact. Communication was always very centralized, and thus governance had to be as well, to keep everyone up to speed on what's going on. As communications technologies improved, states have become more and more decentralized. (go from the mesopotamian warrior-kings, to Rome, to monarchy, to parliamentary government, to the US). And today, we are presented with the internet --the ultimate in decentralized, near instantaneous communications. We aren't very far from making it possible for anyone, anywhere, to communicate with anyone else, wherever they may be. Obviously, this makes it possible to progress even further by decentralizing things even more! The net result is indistinguishable from anarcho-capitalism. I'd be satisfied with it. Do you like it better from this angle? > Your propositions emanate from a basis which existed before there were > nations and well before investment and economic development began. In fact, > anarchy had to be overcome before consistent development could occur. Once > we organized our societies and brought long (relatively) periods of peace > to the general populace economic and scientific development began to grow. > Certainly you will find it impossible to site any anarchic or nearly No, but you couldn't have cited the United States before it existed either. > anarchic "society" (oxymoron) Only if you persist in confusing society with the state. > which has brought sustained significant > development. > > > > >You can, of course, as me how it *could* happen. And unfortunately, > >you're partially correct, it couldn't happen under current conditions. > >The amount of personal firepower that is easily accessible by everyone > >is not sufficient to back up the soverignity of each individual. It's > >all linked to whether weapons technology is such that individuals can > >operate weapons which are just as effective as those wielded by highly > >trained and specialized groups. The pendulum of weapons tech. swings > >back and forth over time. During the American Revolution, the pendulum > >was on the side of individuals, as can be shown by the fact that the > >revolutionaries were carrying better weapons than those carried by > >professional soldiers, and could use them to equal or larger effect. > > > You whole thesis is based on violence, the exact opposite of what's > required for sustained economic growth. Nope, it's based on *reality*. The only way to ensure that no one will inflict violence upon you is to be capable of inflicting at least as much violence upon any attacker. What I'm telling you is that if the above conditions exist, violence will become a very unhealthy trade, and will not be practiced by anyone aside from the occasional lunatic who wants to commit suicide in an interesting fashion. > You lose! Consistently wrong > answers. You just don't get it. I beg to differ. It would appear that *you* just don't get it. Re-read what I've said in the light of my above paragraph, and see if you come to the same conclusion. > War does not produce wide spread economic > growth in those zones affected by the war. It destroys the infrastructure I agree that war destroys infrastructure, and is not going to cause widespread economic growth. I never said otherwise. But lets look at war for a moment, hmm? Those who start wars usually do so because they think they can win them, am I correct? It would be insane to do otherwise. If conditions were such that nobody could be sure of winning, there would be very little incentive to start a war, don't you agree? Of course, in reality, wars are started between nations by their leaders, who supposedly act on the behalf of their people. It is currently possible for the leader of a nation to have an incentive to start a war which his country cannot win, so long as *he* profits by it -in terms of money, power, etc. As long as he doesn't lose personally, he can do whatever he likes (if he's sufficiently amoral, which we must assume that some leaders will be). This is not the same on an individual level, however. It is never in the interest of the attacker to attack someone unless he can be reasonably sure of winning. The attacker cannot divorce himself from the results of his actions, as the leader of a nation can, because he cannot separate his being from his body in any effective sense. That is, if his body loses the fight, he's screwed. The point you raise would seem to be yet another argument for anarcho-capitalism. It would appear that preople have even more incentive not to hurt each other under those conditions than under present ones. > that only an organized government is capable of maintaining. This is untrue. Organized government is not necessary for the maintenence of infrastructure. See my other posts, or "The Market for Liberty". > The real answer is to keep the government focused on keeping the peace and > maintaining the infrastructures using as light a hand as possible--which is > never going to be an easy task. It is an impossible task, as my discussions with Jim Choate have shown. > But no government is NO GROWTH. The > libertarians have at least part of the equation correct. They go a little > too far to one extreme. But this is good, they're mostly just extreme > enough to pull a wondering government back into the middle where it should > be. Your anarcho-spew is rubbish, poorly thought out, and without any real > validation. I've offered plenty of validation. You haven't bothered trying to invalidate these validations, which would be the only way you could logically disprove my arguement. Instead, you've deliberately or unconsciously misunderstood or misread my arguements until they fit in with what you wanted me to have said. At which point, you spewed forth whatever canned response you had ready for what you wished I'd said. > I bet most of the most fervent defenders of gun ownership on this list > actually hope never to have to make use of their tunnels, guns, and > survival rations. You would be correct. I like to count myself among them. I have no desire to hurt or be hurt, rule or be ruled. > War is simply not good economics, 100% correct. > and anarchy is war--constant, festering, > sometimes small scale, sometimes large scale, but always war. Incorrect, for the above reasons. We don't really disagree on the fundamentals. I suggest that you take a very close and unbiased look at the points where we seem to disagree. I suspect that upon closer examination, you will come to the same conclusions that I have. It all hinges on being able to think about *why* the state might be the only possible solution to various problems/required services. This is usually very difficult for most people, as they've had those beliefs drilled into their skulls since they were young. I've found that it's much like a religion, in some respects. At least, all the arguments I've ever had with religious people on the topic of their religion kept ending up much like our current discussion). I've since realized how pointless it is to have such religious arguments. I haven't given up on politial arguments, however, and I hope I never have to. The result is unpleasant to think about. Good luck, and watch out for doublethink! Michael Hohensee

1 0

FW: RFC 2440 on OpenPGP Message Format
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: RFC Editor [SMTP:rfc-ed@ISI.EDU] > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 5:06 PM > Cc: rfc-ed(a)ISI.EDU > Subject: RFC 2440 on OpenPGP Message Format > > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 2440: > > Title: OpenPGP Message Format > Author(s): J. Callas, L. Donnerhacke, H. Finney, R. Thayer > Status: Proposed Standard > Date: November 1998 > Mailbox: jon(a)pgp.com, lutz(a)iks-jena.de, hal(a)pgp.com, > rodney(a)unitran.com > Pages: 65 > Characters: 141371 > Updates/Obsoletes/See Also: None > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-08.txt > > URL: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2440.txt > > This document is maintained in order to publish all necessary > information needed to develop interoperable applications based on the > OpenPGP format. It is not a step-by-step cookbook for writing an > application. It describes only the format and methods needed to read, > check, generate, and write conforming packets crossing any network. > It does not deal with storage and implementation questions. It does, > however, discuss implementation issues necessary to avoid security > flaws. > > This document is a product of the An Open Specification for Pretty > Good Privacy Working Group of the IETF. > > This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. > > This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for > the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the > "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the > standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution > of this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. > Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list > should be sent to IETF-REQUEST(a)IETF.ORG. Requests to be > added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should > be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. > > Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending > an EMAIL message to rfc-info(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body > help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: > > To: rfc-info(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG > Subject: getting rfcs > > help: ways_to_get_rfcs > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution.echo > Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to > RFC-EDITOR(a)RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC > Authors, for further information. > > > Joyce K. Reynolds and Alegre Ramos > USC/Information Sciences Institute > > ... > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version > of the RFCs. <<Untitled Attachment>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:11:07 -0500 ATT30256

1 0

Anonymizer developer positions available.
by Lance Cottrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anonymizer Inc. <http://www.anonymizer.com> is looking for programers to work on various projects under development. We have two positions available, one short term contract work, the other full time. Contract programmer: Term: 1-2 months Skills: Visual Basic, Windows API, TCP networking Full time development team leader: Skills: C / C++ PERL UNIX TCP Networking / sockets For either position send email and resume to me at <lcottrell(a)anonymizer.com>. We are looking for people who share our passion for free speech and privacy. -Lance Cottrell Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell(a)anonymizer.com Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 667-7969 Fax: (619) 667-7966 www.Anonymizer.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNknmc8VB0soGGMVrEQIHZwCg8LUShD1hd+EUHbWewgyDbWv0mlUAniBO MXykZTIrYLEIE1F8HskuLhLz =CZu9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DCSB: Mary Ellen Zurko; Jonah, IBM, Open Source, and Digital Commerce
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rah(a)pop.sneaker.net Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:07:03 -0500 To: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu, dcsb-announce(a)ai.mit.edu From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: DCSB: Mary Ellen Zurko; Jonah, IBM, Open Source, and Digital Commerce Cc: "Heffan, Ira" <HEFFAN(a)tht.com>, Roland Mueller <roland(a)secunet.com> Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Digital Commerce Society of Boston Presents Mary Ellen Zurko Security Architect, Iris Associates "Oh Jonah, He lived in a whale", or, How IBM decided to win in ecommerce by embracing standards and donating code Tuesday, December 1st, 1998 12 - 2 PM The Downtown Harvard Club of Boston One Federal Street, Boston, MA IBM was faced with the question a year ago of how to move from a slow starter to a leader in security infrastructure for ecommerce. Our traditional response to that sort of question had been "Hey kids, let's buy a company!" However, innovative internal forces recognized the power of the current standards and open source movements. We targeted the IETF PKIX standards as the most likely to move ecommerce forward, hired a team of experts in security and PKI and situated them in MA, drafted existing IBM experts in CDSA and smart cards, put together the first cross IBM/Lotus/Iris team and the first group with a charter to write freeware, and delivered the initial code drop to the MIT web site hosting it in September. The team and the freeware are called Jonah. This talk will cover the background, current status, and future of the Jonah effort. Mary Ellen Zurko is Security Architect at Iris, the folks who brought you Lotus Notes. She previously worked at The Open Group. She spent the four years before Jonah leading research in innovative and usable distributed authorization solutions, which posited the solution of the distributed authentication problem. Her current work on public key authentication and infrastructures is karmic revenge for such hubris. She has published papers in user centered security, roles based access control, WWW security and high assurance operating systems. She is an organizer of the New Security Paradigms Workshops and a member of the IW3C2, which runs the international WWW conferences. This meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of Boston will be held on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, from 12pm - 2pm at the Downtown Branch of the Harvard Club of Boston, on One Federal Street. The price for lunch is $32.50. This price includes lunch, room rental, various A/V hardware, and the speaker's lunch. ;-). The Harvard Club *does* have dress code: jackets and ties for men (and no sneakers or jeans), and "appropriate business attire" (whatever that means), for women. Fair warning: since we purchase these luncheons in advance, we will be unable to refund the price of your lunch if the Club finds you in violation of the dress code. We need to receive a company check, or money order, (or, if we *really* know you, a personal check) payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", by Saturday, November 28th, or you won't be on the list for lunch. Checks payable to anyone else but The Harvard Club of Boston will have to be sent back. Checks should be sent to Robert Hettinga, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02131. Again, they *must* be made payable to "The Harvard Club of Boston", in the amount of $32.50. Please include your e-mail address, so that we can send you a confirmation If anyone has questions, or has a problem with these arrangements (We've had to work with glacial A/P departments more than once, for instance), please let us know via e-mail, and we'll see if we can work something out. Upcoming speakers for DCSB are: January Ira Heffan Internet Software and Business Process Patents February Roland Mueller European Privacy Directive We are actively searching for future speakers. If you are in Boston on the first Tuesday of the month, and you would like to make a presentation to the Society, please send e-mail to the DCSB Program Commmittee, care of Robert Hettinga, <mailto: rah(a)shipwright.com>. For more information about the Digital Commerce Society of Boston, send "info dcsb" in the body of a message to <mailto: majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu> . If you want to subscribe to the DCSB e-mail list, send "subscribe dcsb" in the body of a message to <mailto: majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu> . We look forward to seeing you there! Cheers, Robert Hettinga Moderator, The Digital Commerce Society of Boston -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQEVAwUBNkn8T8UCGwxmWcHhAQH/6wf9EAXIGyox0VsqMHbO23ONy8as3htAahM0 liUOC9nj3Djjz8TCU0RRv2KckdkpyVrt0jb36NgPvgPCrLOpK682o8Q2VBFqaqUB q3+gtrdhpLUYffAJ02PvK9DvOCeb/zyWTmZ6rti/3tgTCHAjuiaL41Ryvg8u6J+A DqFR1Adk+xhnVlpzzelGI1IIBrI9fjqdAza9oK1Ub5LZ9Cc5MaU3417XsnCVVL3j MJRs3BGPiUKwFSeMO6PTSs916wrIoXXiY4KoeFD2qjLqidJbgOQoGZamEkQd5TOJ 1C5cYslIcUsH95TEVWPhs1YjT04WnU964X8FRbxsQtfQ4zk/lSFPbg== =sRPk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this list, send a letter to: Majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb-announce Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb-announce If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB(a)ai.mit.edu --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

2 1

Nationalized Public Radio
by Frederick Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

National Public Radio (NPR) today announced the appointment of Kevin Klose as the next President and CEO of NPR. His stint at The Washington Post included a position as Moscow Bureau Chief. He is currently Director of the US International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). No need to hide your shortwave under the floorboards anymore, Voice of America is now on the FM airwaves. Story at: http://www.npr.org/inside/press/981111.klose.html

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:23:43 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > So leaders should be able to do whatever they want within their own > borders w/out the possibility of being held responsible for what they do to > citizens of other countries who just happen to be visiting? Absolutely. It's what is meant by indipendent nation. It's between the leaders and the citizens. > What about rule by law? What about it? I don't believe in one world governments, it's a bad idea. Within the confines of a given country there should be a rule of law, that rule should not necessarily be the same as any other country. And other countries should most definitely NOT have a say in it. Do you want Germany having a say in our laws (for example)? > That was not the point, the point was about black market goods. No, the point was about freedom of choice. > So then you admit you were lying about the deaths and blindness > being the cause of regulation, since you claimed it happend in the late > 1800's & early 1900's, but the regualtion and taxing went all the way back > to the middle ages? Taxing went on, the regulation of alcohol production didn't occur in this country until after the Civil War. Taxing alcohol is a whole different issue than regulating the quality and methods of production, and is most certainly not equivalent to regulations on where it might be sold and under what conditions. > It prevents businesses from using the Press to manipulate the > government into doing something about a problem that doesn't exist. No it doesn't. The press is a business, and if you don't think they don't try to manipulate more than the government you're in for a surprise. There are cases of the press being manipulated because of the impact of certain story presentation lines on their income. > >whistle-blowers and 'social do-gooders' to get their message out (unless > >they're well heeled and don't mind loosing it all in the process). > > That is already/still the case. You piss off the wrong people, you > die. Actualy not, there are a variety of whistle-blower laws on the book at every level. Also the number of whistle-blowers who are killed currently are pretty small (name 3). A lot of them loose the jobs they blew the whistle on but that is many cases is to be expected (after all if the issue is important enough the business will cease to exist). > >put any sort of limit on its expression. > > It INHERENTLY recognizes it, and inherently limits it. No it doesn't, it does not in any way prevent abuse and further provides no mechanism for the restitution or correction of that abuse. > No one has the power. > > THAT'S THE POINT. No, the point is that whoever is the most ruthless will get ahead. If you don't think that is power then you should sit and think. > Some agendas can't be pushed thru business, or at least not the > same way. Such as? Greed and profit always can be pushed through business, it's what they do. > If I got them legally, they were a legal commodity, if I dispose of > them legally, they move from the "white" market, to the "black" market. Which requires that yot mislead the doctor as to why you want them. > The fact that not everything on the black market was stolen ISN'T > the point, the point is that there can be things on the black market that > aren't stolen, and aren't inherently illegal (tomatoes, vicadan, alcohol) > but are still part of the black market because of the nature of the market > and the legal system. Why would anyone buy a commenly available item on the black market when they could go to the corner store and purchase it? They won't. People who are involved in the black market are there for profit. If they go down to the store and buy say tomatoes at $2/lb. whey would they sell them to you at $1.75/lb? They wouldn't. The alcohol and cigarettes you buy on the black market lack tax stamps are have bogus stamps. Why? Becuase the cost is much lower without the added tax and legitimate distribution expenses. > FUCKING BULLSHIT. YOu JUST brought introduced your thesis that even > if most stuff isn't actually stolen, then it is bought with money gained by > theft in your last post on this issue. Before that you were maintaining > that everything on the black market had to be stolen, and in fact this No, go back - I never said that. I have continously said that the majority of items on the black market are related to a stolen service or product. I stand by that statement. I'd go on but it's been a long day and I'm in no mood for this petty bickering. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** forwarded as requested ** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:04:57 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> To: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) If you want a responce post it publicly. > > On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > I am willing to pay for fire protection. I am not willing to pay > > > for "universal health care", "welfare", and other such nonsense. > > > > The Constitution happens to mention that the federal government is detailed > > with taking care of the general welfare. If you don't like that sort of stuff > > then get a Constitutional amendment passed. > > > > Wow. He said it. This proves that Jim hasn't really read any history > since public high school. > > Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to > actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the > constitution, much less say how it should be amended. > > If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been > to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is > in the interests of our general welfare. Madison explicitly addressed > the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause. > > Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this > they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their > conclusion was not already decided. > > The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal > government. It is very specific. As Madison stated, if the general > welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there > would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal > government. In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had > said: > > "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it > feels necessary." > > "The powers of the federal government are as follows" > > (1) > (2) > (3) etc > > Which would be ridiculous on its face. > > The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the > Supreme Court. He eventually suceeded in appointing his socialist > crony judges to "reinterpret" the constitution. The first result > of this was that Social (in)Security was ruled constitutional because > it was in "the general welfare". > > This was probably the last nail in the coffin of the Republic. The first > nail was imposing huge export duties on cotton in order to limit demand > outside the country -- in effect driving down cotton prices so it could be > had cheaply by the northern industrial (clothing/textile) markets. > Southern states saw this as blatant price controls. In their inability to > change the taxes they sought to leave the union. A prime example of the > old adage -- "the power to tax is the power to destroy". In this case it > was destroying the union itself. Only after the war was on did the north > use the anti-slavery propaganda to peddle their cause. And use it to good > advantage they did. I'm glad the slaves were emancipated, but I wish > it were done with less blood and more foresight. > > Bear in mind that as a libertarian I view slavery as one of the ultimate > evils. However, the northern industrialists had no leg to stand on > because they were one of the prime beneficiaries of cheap labor and thus > cheap cotton prices during the era of westward expansion. Never mind that > only the wealthy in the south owned slaves. If that was so, why was the > opposition to the feds so virulent? > > By 1913, Jekyl Island was a done deal. The income tax and the federal > reserve banking system were unleashed. A concise discussion of this is > beyond the scope of this posting. Needless to say centralized federal > power was on the move. The system of institutionalized fiat currency was > one of the main causes of the 1929 crash that put Roosevelt in power. It > was that "government breaks your leg, government hands you a crutch, > government becomes savior" mentality that resulted in the endless cycle > of market distortions and power grabs that put us where we are now. > > Does this mean that Roosevelt was "evil". No. Just that, as one > playwrite once said, "the conflict of good against good is much more > interesting". Well-intentioned "good people" have contributed more to the > misery of the human race that any other factor alone. I'm sure that > Roosevelt felt he was doing "good" when he undid the Republic. His > crowning achievment was his stacking of the Supreme Court and the > resulting unlimited expansion of federal power. If this country survives > Y2K it will have to contend with the issue that the scope of the federal > government's power is not unlimited. Something has got to give. Y2K > seems as likely a bifurcation and surfaction point as any. > > Maybe Hettinga is right. Economics, like physics obeys the "reality is > not an option" rule. When centralized bureacracy becomes too expensive > the invisible hand will select something more efficient. > > jim > > > > > >

1 0

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:59:11 -0500 (EST) > From: Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> > Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN] > Why would this be "unconstitutional?" Juries are to be composed of your peers taken from the community in which the crime occurred. A single judge doesn't make a jury of ones peers. > Are you at all familiar with the case? There seems to be a fair amount of > evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that would indicate a certain > politically and financially powerful family used its influence to keep > the two prime suspects in the case from coming to trial for over 20 > years. Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have been abused. One wrong does not justify another. > One judge is better than nothing. OTOH, maybe a football, a few pine > trees, and some vertical slope would do justice. Actualy 10 guilty men walking free is better than one innocent man in jail, or a justice system that gets abused. > (Or do you think there should be a statute of limitations involved?) Irrelevant. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:27:21 -0700 (MST) > From: Jim Burnes <jvb(a)ssds.com> > Subject: Re: "social responsibility" was (dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect) (fwd) > > Actually this is the central fallacy of those that haven't bothered to > > actually read the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers or the > > constitution, much less say how it should be amended. That's an easy way to brush aside having to prove your point. Especialy after having drawn a completely illogical and incorrect conclusion like this. > > If a constitutional amendment had to have been passed it would have been > > to give the federal government unlimited power to do what they believe is > > in the interests of our general welfare. This sentence makes no sense, mind rewording it so I know specificaly what it is your talking about. No amendment has to be passed. > Madison explicitly addressed > > the issue of unlimited federal power emanating from the welfare clause. Would you mind explaining where providing for the *general* welfare equates to unlimited powers? No government has unlimited powers and providing for the general welfare can't honestly be extrapolated to that conclusion. Within the context of the Constitution general welfare is in reference to building a framework for the expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > > Had the supreme court bothered to read the founder's writings on this > > they would have found it in a week or two. That's assuming their > > conclusion was not already decided. Found what? Whose conclusions, the founding fathers or the sitting supremes? > > The constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of the federal > > government. It is very specific. And prohibits the enumeration of individual liberties by the same government. Rather handy little situation that, since it completely blows holes in any move to derive totalitarian control (which by the way is not democratic). As Madison stated, if the general > > welfare clause meant what the socialist engineers wished it meant, there > > would have been no need to enumerate the specific powers of the federal > > government. Well to be accurate there was no enumeration of the specific powers in the original Constitution, it's why Jefferson (who was in France at the time), Madison, and others fought and supported the Bill of Rights. Because of the 9th and 10th such moves are inherently doomed to failure. In fact, it would have been as if the founding fathers had > > said: > > > > "The federal government has unlimited power to do whatever it > > feels necessary." > > > > "The powers of the federal government are as follows" > > > > (1) > > (2) > > (3) etc > > > > Which would be ridiculous on its face. This entire section is ridiculous. To say on one hand the powers are unlimited and then to proceed to list them weakens the argument, this was also the reason for the 10th. It prevents such extrapolations as this. > > The reality of the situation is that Roosevelt kept trying to stack the > > Supreme Court. Wow, I didn't realize Roosevelt was even alive to participate in the original Constitutional debates. I'm going to stop here since we are obviously off on one of your pet peeves that isn't related to the discussion at hand. To jump 150 years in one fell swoop is pretty extraordinary. The reality is, as Jefferson himself said, that the laws of one generation aren't the laws of another. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

ANNOUNCE: SATURDAY Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting - Stanford University
by Hugh Daniel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The November Cypherpunks Meeting will be Saturday 11/14 from 1-5pm at Stanford, at the tables outside Tresidder Union, near the bookstore. The tables are on the west side, which is the inside of the U-shape. Coffee and food are available in the building. If the weather is uncooperative, we will also be inside the building. Lucky Green will be talking about his latest work. Hugh Daniel will update us on the new alpha of Linux FreeS/WAN. Bagels and Bagel Parephrenalia will be provided. Directions to Stanford Tresidder Hall Stanford is between El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Blvd, which are between 101 and 280. The Tresidder Parking Lot is on Mayfield Ave, off Campus Drive East. http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/search_map.html?keyword=&ACADEMIC=Tresidde… http://www.stanford.edu/home/map/stanford_zoom_map.html?234,312 The upside-down map of Stanford&Vicinity is at http://www.stanford.edu/home/visitors/vicinity.html Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:52:06 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can > call it that) [CNN] (fwd) > Jim, "Grand Jury", a jury to see if there is enough evidence to > warrant a full trial. > > >Irrelevant, one doesn't throw away the justice system because it might have > >been abused. One wrong does not justify another. > > Correct, but this isn't a guilty or innocent trial, this is a "is > there enough evidence to try this person" type trial. > > This judge can't throw the perp in jail, only throw another trial > where there will be 12 to judge. ARTICLE V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ARTICLE VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- By definition a jury is more than one, it's the reason they are implimented; to moderate the biases of the individual. Secondly, a judge is not impartial when acting in the stead of the state in two capacities at one time. Especialy when by their very nature they are at least to some degree confrontational. Dem's da rules bubba. The Kennedy lawyers should be throwing civil right shit fits about now. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can (fwd) [a couple of other comments]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > ARTICLE V. > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise > infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, > except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, > when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any > person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of > life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness > against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without > due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, > without just compensation. It's important to read that part about depriving life, liberty, or property within the context of forced medication, deprivation of social contacts, etc. before a trial has even been held. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and that means you can deprive him of geographic freedom if they can't pay bail. Outside of that any interruption or loss of income is the responsibility of the state to recompensate. It should also guarantee that if found innocent the incident won't have an impact on current or future career and life opportunities. They're sworn to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with their lives if necessary. That's why their called PUBLIC SERVANTS. Note that property may be taken by the state through due process, private property (my home, personal savings, papers, etc.) can't be siezed for *ANY* reason without just compensation. Businesses and shared accounts (such as 401k's perhaps) are fair game. I break the law and you want to take my house? Fucking get your check book out. Otherwise it's theft and that's a crime in principle and practice. This means that *EVERY* confiscation law on the books yesterday, today, or tomorrow are completely illegal if they allow confiscation of private property in relation to crime. If the LEA's, courts, politicians, etc. really, really, really believe that the people of this country want to allow them to confiscate their property in relation to criminal activity then they should parent an amendment to that effect immediately. I'll tell you now, it ain't got a hope in hell. And when the reckoning day comes on this particular issue it's going to be a doozie. > ARTICLE VI. > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right > to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and > district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district > have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the > nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses > against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his > favor, and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Note that the right to have *ASSISTANCE* of counsel is guaranteed. This means the state must provide you an attorney to assist in the correct process documentation *EVEN* if you represent yourself. Because it uses the term assistance there can be no implied power of attorney without direct and unconstrained and willing complicity by the accussed. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 20:34:10 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > There is an expectation that when one travels, one is protected by > certain laws, at least the laws of the country that one is traveling to. Absolutely, that concept does not proscribe them from making a law to recognize the laws of other countries. It doesn't make it right but then again the freedom of choice implies the freedom to make mistakes. It figures that on occassion it'll be a whopper (TM). If Penoche didn't know that Spain could extradite him from England then he needs to hire a new lawyer. There is absolutely no expectation in the concept of freedom that prohibits one from walking into a police station and admitting a crime. This isn't even an issue, neither the British or the Spanish forced him to England. And the Spanish didn't force Britian to sign the treaty recognizing extradition. He got what he deserves. He was stupid to have treated anyone like that and he was stupid to go to England. He is a stupid man. My personal view is I don't care unless I am in that country. If I have an expectation to go somewhere I check on the laws before I'd go. > There are also certain types of crimes that are so morally > reprehensible that to allow them to continue is not possible. Absolutely, and each country should have it's right to choose it's own particular brand of reprehensibility recognized. > Or are you willing to go on record as stating that what Stalin did > to the Jews (or Hitler for that matter) was acceptable, since we shouldn't > have a say in their laws? Well, you have to understand I'm a pantheist. I know it's easy to shrug off and say "so what" but I can't answer this exactly unless you fundamentaly understand literal pantheism. But I'll try. I believe there is no transcendence. As a result everything is divine because that's all there is. To disrespect the uniqueness in anything is a disservice to self. However, concepts of literal sin to my view simply don't exist. The killing of a human by a human is not fundamentaly (think of it as outside of human society, it's close but not close enough) different than a human killing a rabbit, or crushing a rock, or painting a picture. It's an activity, in and of itself it is nothing more than a cold, cosmic event mediated by complete and utter indifference. The universe does not act with anthropocentric motives or mechanations. However, within the concerns of human biology, psychology, and society there is a very real distinction. As a matter of fact there are quite a few. Since they are all a construct of human existance they deserve some level of respect, the freedom of expression in speech and press, not necessarily in action. Because of the fundamental uniqueness of anything, to destroy or change it with willful intent (I wish I could express this better, all I can say is it isn't what normal English means by those two words exactly enough) except in self-defence or survival (eg killing an animal for food) is not moraly (permissible at the level of individual) or ethicaly (the range of permissible acts related to an activity, say a doctor or lawyer) supportable. I am willing to go on record stating that what they did from a national level should concern no nation that is not directly involved. Nations do not have the right to impose their will on other nations, period. Nations may of course dissolve and reform of their own free will and whim. From a personal level everyone should have run over there in about 1936 and kicked their stinking ass as volunteers (the fact that it is not in human nature to participate in mass exhibitions like this voluntarily is another reason that anarcho-whatevers won't work). From a fundamentaly cosmic perspective what they did is completely and utterly irrelevant and of no consequence. At the same time I'm horrified that human beings can do that to other people and live with themselves. The total lack of empathy I find utterly chilling. Poppy Z. Brite in carnate. Let me give you another example, unless the US is attacked directly by Iraq we have no business threatening, let alone initiating, violence. But I'll do what I did the last time we got in a scrap with the rag-head, whatever I can. To do any less might cost somebody their life through my negligent short-term unprincipled self-interest, a sin of ommission for a man of no sins, I won't stop bitching about it either. Does that help any better? Life is a contradiction in motion. > >Do you want Germany having a say in our laws (for example)? > > They do already, it's called international trade. Me selling apples to a German doesn't involve their having a say in my law making unless I'm an idiot in making the laws I operate under. There are treaties, but the assumption is that they are entered into freely and with comprehension. If they don't and do well that's their problem. > Also, if I were a Catholic in a death camp because Jesse Helms > ramed thru legislation blaming the Y2K bug on the Holy C, I'd hope someone > would intervine. Congress can't make laws respecting establishments of religion. Not only can't they support any, they can't prohibit any, they can't even constitutionaly decide what a religion is. Per the 10th that is left to the individual states and their respective representative constitutions. > But you claimed it started in the early 1900's in response to > deaths and blindness. The regulation of the manufacture and sales of alcohol started after the civil war, late 1800' and early 1900's depending on your geography. It's impossible to set a single date since the various laws were'not all initiated at the same time. I believe somebody else is the person who equated prohibition with regulation. In general the laws were put in place because either there was a problem with tainted alcohol (this was a real problem in the very early 1900's because of the use of lead pipes and other amalgams that don't treat people nicely) or excessive consumption by the youth usualy (ala The Great Gatsby). The laws got a lot more draconian after prohibition was renounced. This is when many states really jumped on the taxation band-wagon. The reasoning behind the taxation of alcohol is the same today as it was in Jeffersons day. He said that the taxation was intended to reduce the use because of its debilitating effects. Then of course there is the consideration of what a government can do with that money as well. This taxation is what started the Whiskey Rebellion in the late 1790's. Jefferson finaly repealed it after quite a string of violence in the early 1800's (sorry I don't remember the actual dates, a web search on Whiskey Rebellion would probably turn something up). During the whole thing Washington was riding his fat ass around buying cheap land and forceably moving people who had lived there, in general acting the little tyrant. He was involved in at least two related deaths and had invested in the business and supported the taxation. What's really interesting is that when these taxes were intiated in the early 1700's (originaly by the British) they were imposed on the manufacturer not the consumer even though they were to limit the consumption and not the manufacture. The history of alcohol is long and twisted. > It prevents the press from manipulating the government because > there ISN'T ONE, or if there is (in the case of extreme > libertarian/minarchist) it is so restricted and powerless it can't do > anything execpt try to gather more power. True, but then the news papers (they are not the same as the press - where that commen misconception is from is beyond my keen) would just pander to their extant major supporter, advertisers. How honest do you think that would make them? Not very. If given the choice between the truth or a fatter check newspapers (and their reporters) have in general chosen the way of the greenback. Jefferson said he would never write a line in a newspaper, and didn't. He thought them vile. He however held the free press (he meant unrestrained communication between individuals) in high regard (obviously). > Yes, businesses can manipulate the press, and do-gooders can always > start their own press and fight back. Who do they buy the press parts from? The ink and paper? The distribution channles? Etc. You might be able to start one up but you won't last long in a monotonicly profit driven free-market. If they rake muck too much they won't have a rake anymore. > Yeah, and there are laws against Drug Dealing which work real well. There's probably a lesson in there somewhere... > I wanna say Karen something or other as one case--Silkwood? That was one of the ones I was thinking of. > Point still holds, you speak out, you get in trouble, legal or no. > Laws don't prevent things from happening, they simply give society the > moral authority to say "We Warned You, Now Off With His Head" or some such. They moderate and mediate those actions and in fact do set a limit on what can occur at the social level. I'll say it again, government isn't for regulating individual interactions at the daily level. It's simply too fine grain. It will control trends and behaviours with a good deal of aplomb (if it's not abused) - and I'm talking specificaly of a republican democracy like the US has. Governments address the general parameters of a society. > When was the last time you _didn't_ kill someone just because it is > illegal? Every time. I can think of three times. Two accidents hunting and the third a crazy with a knife. On a personal level I felt my sense of justification from committing such an act didn't equate to me spending time in jail. They're still alive, and I didn't do time. Works for me. In all three times I could have shot them and walked off, I wouldn't have been found and there were no connections. All three times were completely random events, hapinstance. I quit hunting after the second hunting event. I also don't go for long walks on the other side of the tracks at 2am anymore when I can't sleep. Some junior high kid tried to rob me. > It's expected, but illegal? How can it be illegal if there are no bodies to create them, courts to ejudicate them, supposedly unbiased police to enforce them. Now if we agree that human nature isn't going to change then there is still the unanswered (but asked a few dozen times) as to what the exact mechanism is that prevents abuse. Simply saying that people will find out is not historicaly reliable, people just don't volunteer for those sorts of things. Their first reaction is to stay out of it. Even if they find out what do they do about it? Go to a similar business down the street that operates identicaly? > It prevents government abuse, it prevents systemic abuse of power > and authority. Rape is rape, the point is to prevent it. Not just prevent it from your father. > It also makes it easier to get people to resist abuse & to fight > back, since the abuse isn't built in, nor do the abusers have any sort of > "authority" to fall back on. People are more likely to suffer injustice as long as its sufferable. It's a rare event to incite a large population to violence. > Which is different from now HOW? At least now there are limits to how ruthless they may be. You don't see tanks on your street corner, there aren't troops of men running around dragging people out of their homes because they're catholic or read 'Catcher in the Rye' or 'Atlas Shrugged' and shooting them. And people (like us right now) get to bitch about it with as near complete impunity as is possible in a real world. Hell through the amendment process we can concievably bypass the federal government completely. All that is required is the calling of a convention, which the federal government have no authority over (especialy since the right to peaceably assemble is protected and it don't get much more peaceable than a constitutional convention). > Isn't Billy Gates one of your poster boys for being ruthless? Isn't > he so far head of the rest of us that he could be in court for the rest of > his life and not spend everything? What makes Bill Gates reprehensible is not what he did with Microsoft, though the company as a whole should suffer. They certainly made profit together, they should share the flip side of the coin. Why I hold Bill Gates in so low esteem is his moral standing. A perfect example is hurricane Mitch. The World Bank came up with a tad over $100M for releif. Bill makes that in a few days. Here is a man with the means to institute huge social, political, and economic change that at his level is a pittance and he does nothing. He is scum. He made his bed, let him lie in it. He didn't help others when they could have used it at little to no impact to him, why should they extend a helping hand in return? This is another excellent example of why anarcho-whatevers won't work. The psychology of the truly wealthy is so self-interested and goal-oriented instead of principled that they almost become pathological in their lack of empathy. The claim is that succesful business will be some sort of utopic, empathetic social force. It won't be, it isn't in human nature. > Greed is not an agenda, it is an emotion, Profit is an agenda. True, but there are many potential motives that drive profit, greed is the most base one and as a result drives the lower levels of human activity. I gotta stop now, I'm sleepy. If I didn't get around to answering all the questions it's because there are lots of you and only one of me...ask again in a few days and I'll answer it then. Good night. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

update.401 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 14:30:13 -0500 (EST) > From: physnews(a)aip.org (AIP listserver) > Subject: update.401 > INFLUENCE OF COSMIC RAYS ON EARTH'S CLIMATE. Do > SUREFIRE QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT, the ability to > interlink two quantum particles with practically 100% certainty, has > been achieved by a NIST group (Quentin Turchette, 303-497-3328), > advancing hopes for ultrapowerful quantum computers. Previously, > physicists obtained entangled particles as a byproduct of some > random or probabilistic process, such as the production of two > correlated photons that occasionally occurs when a single photon > passes through a special crystal. Receiving entangled pairs in this > way is fine for tests of quantum nonlocality (Update 399), but > entangling a large number of quantum particles--essential for > building a practical quantum computer--becomes much less likely if > it is dependent on a probabilistic process. In their "deterministic > entanglement" process, the NIST researchers trap a pair of > beryllium ions in a magnetic field. Using a predetermined sequence > of laser pulses, they entangle one ion's internal spin to its external > motion, and then entangle the motion to the spin of the other atom. > The group believes that it will be able to entangle multiple ions with > this process. (Turchette et al, Physical Review Letters, 26 October > 1998.) > THE PETAWATT is the name for what is currently the world's ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Fwd: GOST
by scoops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:50:36 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: scoops <scoops(a)quiknet.com> >Subject: GOST > >Jetico <www.jetico.com> a Finnish company (I believe) offers a number of encryption algorithms in its BestCrypt package, among which is GOST which it reports having a 256 key (it also sports Blowfish and DES as I recall). I also remember a few weeks ago reports in the press and on the List of a porn ring broken up and some agent involved saying that the some porn was encrypted in an old KGB program which sounded much like GOST. The implication is that it's transparent to the feds. However I have no idea about various levels at which it might be implimented. I'm sure the real experts on the List will fill you in.

1 0

Long Term Returns: Value vs. Growth
by 5se Investment Research 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Fellow Investor, Recently two professors from the University of Chicago, Eugene Fama and Ken French, published a study demonstrating the difference in long term returns of value and growth stocks. The study encompassed almost all stocks on every major US exchange. This celebrated study presented overwhelming evidence that market forces tend to overreact to past events, pricing growth stocks too high, and value stocks too low. Because of these reactions, as a group, growth stocks produce below average returns for investors who purchase them at high prices, and value stocks produce above average returns for investors who purchase them at depressed prices. The professors used book to market value to correlate the long term returns. Value stocks having high book to market value and Growth stocks identified by a low book to market value. On average the stocks fitting the value criteria had average annual returns of 21.4% while growth stocks had only 8% average annual returns. Factoring in inflation, the real long term rate of return for value stocks is a bit over 15% but only 2.5% for the growth group. Essentially the study is a good reminder that, when it comes to investing, what goes around comes around. Good companies can experience bad times and be unfairly priced. Apple, IBM, Coke, American Express, and many other excellent companies have experienced the wrath of an unforgiving market, and yet, they are companies with a proven ability to persist in the face of large challenges. Identifying value is simple. All you have to do is look for Good companies experiencing temporary difficulties. This simple strategy will, if you are willing to wait out the storm, reward you with hefty long term returns and lower risk (as the F&F study also showed). Stocks that meet the F&F criteria for value and have solid management in todays market include: Callaway Golf Ensco Corp Reebok Advanta Corp To learn more about the F&F study read Robert Haugen's book "The New Finance" available at http://www.5se.com/5se1.htm Regards, Jeffrey Minich 5se Investment Research New at the 5se site ********************** PortfolioPower! Portfolio Management Model versions for both Excel 95 & 97. Special Upgrade price, only $19.95, for PortfolioPower! Trial Users. Includes a special single-issue online preview of the latest 5se Wealth Building Report. Instant online credit card payment processing and PortfolioPower! order fulfillment with your American Express, Visa, Mastercard, Diners Club, or Discover card. http://www.5se.com/secretproduct.htm

1 0

Re: Nationalized Public Radio
by x 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Exceprts from: " Text of RFE/RL President Kevin Klose's Statements Prague, July 4 (RFE/RL) -- The following is a text of introductory remarks by RFE/RL President Kevin Klose today at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: .... On this Independence Day, 1996, the two-hundredth twentieth celebration of the United States, we are also celebrating the second anniversary of the decision to move Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to the former federal parliament building here in Prague. We are deeply honored that Mrs. Clinton has chosen our headquarters from which to make an historic, Indpendence Day address. .... History has taught that democracy cannot live in an information vacuum. indeed, a well-informed citizenry is essential for democracy and free-market economies to flourish. This powerful historic truth guides our radios each day. Our servces in 23 languages provide accurate, objective news and information to millions of people across 11 time zones. Citizens in newly-emancipated lands can be freed from the past by the power of information itself to establish civil societies. The stakes are enormous. Civil societies that guard human freedoms across our broadcast regions can guarantee a stable, peaceful future for all of Europe and the world. Our mission to assist democratic change, to combat nationalism and racism, must not falter. .... Here at the radios you will find 350 Czechs and Americans, and men and women from more than 20 other countries, working in harmony and partnership to broadcast truthful information for the sake of our homelands and the futures of our children. Thank you, one and all. Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for joining us to celebrate our Independence Day. © 1996 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc. All Rights Reserved. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- Disclaimer: This is a review and fair use, thank you very much, or should I pack my prison garb now? Since freedom cannot flourish in an information vacuum this posting is probably illegal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- At 06:51 PM 11/11/98 -0500, Frederick Burroughs wrote: > >National Public Radio (NPR) today announced the appointment of Kevin >Klose as the next President and CEO of NPR. His stint at The Washington >Post included a position as Moscow Bureau Chief. He is currently >Director of the US International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). > >No need to hide your shortwave under the floorboards anymore, Voice of >America is now on the FM airwaves. Story at: > >http://www.npr.org/inside/press/981111.klose.html > > >

1 0

acceptable user policies
by Duncan Licence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey there, I am having to formulate an acceptable user policy for the users. Does anybody know of any online references, or examples of such policies. This would have to include specifications like email use, internet access, games over the LAN - anything that you can get your head around pertaining to such. This of course would have to weigh up between the rights of the users and protection of the network and PCs Your help would be greatly appreciated Duncan

1 0

acceptable user policies
by Duncan Licence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey there, I am having to formulate an acceptable user policy for the users. Does anybody know of any online references, or examples of such policies. This would have to include specifications like email use, internet access, games over the LAN - anything that you can get your head around pertaining to such. This of course would have to weigh up between the rights of the users and protection of the network and PCs Your help would be greatly appreciated Duncan

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED FRI NOV 13 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + ISLAND EROTICA + BIGGINS + WET WET WEB + INDIAN PORN + PURE PIX + WHITE CHOCOLATE + XXX FEMALES + HARDCORE SEX WITH ZOOM + CUMSHOT QUEENS + XXX 4 FREE + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/31225.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/15219.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/6401.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9541.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/9140.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0