December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: What Will Revolution Look Like?
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >No, the revolution, when it comes, will likely be different from anything >quite like we've seen to date. .................................................... In the revolution against the British, the U.S. was a small colony sitting on a vast "new" land, with the Natives but a minor obstacle to expansion. Presently there is no such unoccupied place which could be claimed for the cause of liberty, and revolutionaries are sitting in the middle of the enemy camp, surrounded everywhere by people who "just want to save lives". You could temporarily send a political message and get your names in the news, but then totally lose the war from being outnumbered and overwhelmed by non-sympathizers. A long time ago it was possible, given the distance of water and land between peoples, to make a break with them physically. The enemy could be driven out, sent "home", and the winners could develop their new living arrangements in the new setting. But there is no new setting to go to, there is nowhere to send the infidels. The life of a new libertarian "society" would have to be created as a virtual one, existing among or in-between the others. Of course the basis of the original setup is still mentioned every once in a while, and so it is still in the minds of everyone, even if only as a dim reference, so it could be said that the most a current revolution could accomplish would be the return of the original ideal to the minds of the population. But I think that it would take much more than a few skirmishes to accomplish that, as it doesn't appear that it carries all that much support. It would be like getting a kid to take down some medicine; many don't really want to live so independently, nor feel the need to identify what kind of life would be the more ideal (i.e. they don't identify precisely the difference between a socialist atmosphere and a libertarian one, nor concern themselves with why they should spend any time worrying about the difference it makes.) An intentional revolution, I fear, would just look like an attempt to make people think. And therefore not taken too seriously. (And if the revolutionaires lose? tough luck. Oh, well. Gotta go to work in the morning.) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > > At 9:14 PM -0700 10/30/97, Anonymous wrote: > > > This non-violent demonstrators were willing to accept the agreed > >upon punishment/cost of their actions in protest of the actions > >of their public servants. Their public servants, as usual, chose > >to to act in the manner of savages who are incapable of holding > >to the rule of law which they use to justify their confiscation > >of the citizen's right to bear arms in the face of tyranny. > > Excuse me, but this modern notion that protestors get to "make a deal" > about the fines they'll eventually pay is bogus. If they're trespassing, > they're trespassing. They don't get to take over Intel's factory, chain > themselves to the Evil Factory doors, and then make a deal to pay some > token fine. Perhaps I was unclear, but I was refering to the _ancient_ notion that once one has crawled out of the primeval swamp and begun to walk upright, that they should work on controlling their animal passions to the extent that they abide by the agreements they have sworn to uphold, regardless of whether the people they are being paid to serve have pissed them off. Am I mistaken in my impression that they did not take over Intel's factory? How is your mind holding up, Tim? Can you remember details of your life that don't have to do with Intel? {Not that I haven't sunken in to remeniscing about my life during several posts today. I suppose it is only a matter of time until we are all Grouchy Old Cypherpunks inundating the list with posts about who died, who has prostrate cancer, and who broke their hip trying to close that darned new-fangled nuclear suitcase.} > Like the AIDS protestors who "arrange" a deal whereby they'll shut down the > Golden Gate Bridge for several hours and then pay their arranged $50 > tickets. Do you know about some 'deal' of which I am not aware in this situation or shall we discuss the _real_ events which took place in Humboldt? > Well, what's wrong with me driving up to the head of the sit-down protest > and saying to the cops standing idly by, "Hey, there are some queers in the > middle of the road, blocking my trip to Marin. If you're just gonna let em > sit there for hours, putting my business and plans at risk, I'm just gonna > gun my engine and drive right over their fairy asses." To tell the truth, I really don't have any problem with _you_ doing so. I _would_ have a problem with the cops doing so, however, which is a point I am trying to make. It may be the policeman's job and/or duty to arrest and imprison the people involved, but it is in no way their duty or right to _punish_ the people by invoking a level of violence which is not necessary to accomplish the job. I don't really care if it is _difficult_ for the policemen to deal with the physical details of imprisoning the people. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for the protesters if they get bumped and bruised in the process of the police honestly doing their job. However, it is unconscienable for officers to inflict pain and suffering on the protesters for no other reason than to punish them for making the policeman's job difficult and defying authority. > Crimes are crimes, not "guerilla theater." Not "performance art." Such as dumping tea in Boston harbor to protest oppressive taxation? > > Twenty years or so ago, after seeing pictures of mothers and > >children in chains at a Livermore Labs protest, I wrote a song > >called "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For The Monkey." > > I had a much better idea back then. Leave the mothers and childrens chained > to the fences and gates. > > Pull back from them, erect a cordon around them, and block anyone from > approaching. They wanted to be chained to the fence, sans keys, so let > them have their wish. Fucking eh! I wish you had been in charge back then. I thought it was ridiculous for LEA's to play to protesters desires by escalating situations beyond what was really needed because of some perceived threat to their authority. > Others could show up to throw stuff at them, and place bets on who would be > the last to die. > > And, as the flesh dripped off and the bones whitened, it might be a nice > object lesson for the others. Say, that's not a 'red bandana' on your neck, is it? WhiteSocksAndBlueRibbonBeerMonger

1 0

Re: What Will Revolution Look Like?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Preindicators to revolution and anti-revolution in US: World's highest disparity between poor and rich population. World's highest military expenditures. World's highest justice expenditures. World's largest percentage of population in prison. World's largets percentage of population in law enforcement. World's largest percentage of work force as private guards. World's largest number of guns in private hands. World's largest number of guns in law enforcement hands. World's greatest number of lawyers. World's greatest number of laws. World's greatest number of lawbreakers. World's highest violent crime rate. World's highest "postals." World's highest homicide rate against family members. World's highest homicide rate against authority members. World's greatest percentage of unwed mothers (and absent fathers). World's greatest percentage of men who do not pay child support. World's highest divorce rate. World's highest multiple marriage rate. World's largest number of institutionalized children. World's largest number of psychiatric patients. World's largest number of legal drugs consumers. World's largest number of illegal drugs consumers. World's largest number of protestors. World's largest number of anti-protestors. World's largest percentage of unresponsive population. World's largest percentage of blind faith population.

3 2

Re: PGP 5.5 available outside US
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: > Let me state that I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of PGP. I knew that! I must have eaten too many of the yellow ones tonight to keep track of my Crayola lines. I'd better eat a couple more of the red ones to get myself back on track. > I simply noticed what I thought to be PGP 5.5 on a well known FTP site. > Sorry if it was a dud. Thanks for the pointer, just the same. > -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. > "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" Oh, I see my mistake! I had Caesar, wearing a 'Toga', connected to the anti-Christ with a red Crayola line, and mistook it for 'Tonga'. No problem, I'll just eat a couple of the brown Crayola's and throw three Hail Flutie's. Still Anonymous (except to Lucky)

1 0

Ashcroft on Crypto TV
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

News report: This weekend, Washington Watch, Court TVs public affairs program covering legal and judicial policy in the nations capital, will feature a discussion with Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO). The senator will discuss encryption, intellectual property on the internet, and his opposition to the nomination of Margaret Morrow, a Los Angeles business lawyer and former state bar association president selected by President Clinton for a federal judgeship.

1 0

Jim Bell sentencing delayed
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to PACER, Jim Bell's sentencing has been postponed yet again; the sentencing was originally scheduled for 9/17, which was continued to 10/31, which was continued (via an order on 10/24) until 11/21/97 at 9:00 AM. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com

1 0

Crypto Biz
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rep. Solomon hits SAFE and biz; BXA hits FBI and biz: http://jya.com/cn103197.txt

1 0

Re: Archives?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > Is there an archive of various papers concerning such things as Assassination > Politics, Eternity Servers, Reputation Capital, The Blowfish Cipher, CROWDS, > encryption of IP traffic, etc.? Anonymous, worried that answering himself might lead to being incarcerated against his will for a mental evaluation, replies: Tim C. May is a living archive of these issues and technologies, but it is a bad idea to show up on his doorstep, unannounced. However, it is sometimes possible to sneak into a website to be found at http://jya.com/ and get out alive with as much information as you are capable of stuffing into your CyberPockets during your sojourn into the bowels of Cryptocracy. If you enjoy browsing leisurely through odd piles of obscure posts on all of the above, and more, the Infinity website CPUNX archive can be found at http://infinigy.nus.sg/cypherpunks (Of particular classical value are the many [ADMINISTRAVIUM] posts which contain valuable graphical representations of some of the more arcane CPUNX traditions.) AlwaysHappyToHelpMonger

1 0

The reason we need to give up our rights...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are told that we must give up our right to privacy in order for the government to protect us from the horrors of child molesters, et al. Recently, a Canadian man was charged with 572 instances of having individual and group sex with pre-teenage boys. He was sentenced to a 'duece-less' (two years less a day), which is 'soft time' in Canada, and is served in a provincial jail instead of a federal institution. We are expected to give up our right to privacy so that the sores on our children's bums can be healed just in time for this guy to get out and have another go at them? Would it be ridiculous to suggest that the government *needs* this man back out on the streets in 16 months (if he does 'good time') because there is a shortage of child molesters to hold over our heads for their next attack on our rights and liberties? Hell, give Tim McVeigh a pardon, and then use it for an excuse to make use of compost in the commission of a crime a felony. Personal not to FedUpMonger: I'm just OldAndTiredMonger. I don't need this shit anymore.

1 0

The reason we need to give up our rights...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We are told that we must give up our right to privacy in order for the government to protect us from the horrors of child molesters, et al. Recently, a Canadian man was charged with 572 instances of having individual and group sex with pre-teenage boys. He was sentenced to a 'duece-less' (two years less a day), which is 'soft time' in Canada, and is served in a provincial jail instead of a federal institution. We are expected to give up our right to privacy so that the sores on our children's bums can be healed just in time for this guy to get out and have another go at them? Would it be ridiculous to suggest that the government *needs* this man back out on the streets in 16 months (if he does 'good time') because there is a shortage of child molesters to hold over our heads for their next attack on our rights and liberties? Hell, give Tim McVeigh a pardon, and then use it for an excuse to make use of compost in the commission of a crime a felony. Personal not to FedUpMonger: I'm just OldAndTiredMonger. I don't need this shit anymore.

2 1

Re: Jim Bell sentencing delayed
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg, What's your take on repeated delay in Jim's sentencing: 1. A squeeze on Jim to finger co-conspirators. 2. Weak case, must use procedure to punish. 3. To let time served be the sentence. 4. Jim was up to something worse now being discovered (like 5 below). 5. Jim is a secret gov agent, now feet up in Tacoma IRS laughing at those who fell for suckerbait, screwball AP written by IRS as a sting (a recent book package to Jim was returned marked "Not in Jail"). 6. The court was hoodwinked by IRS, too, and the AUSA is preparing an indictment of the stingers and federal defenders and who knows who else that was in on it. 7. Secret Agent Jim is squealing on his double-crossing secret agents, cutting a deal with whoever else is double- crossing whomever. He's going down, they're going down, we're going down, the whole country's going down; Up the Revolution!

4 3

Re: Protocols for Insuran
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monty Cantsin wrote: > The Emergency Room Scenario is a little more challenging. One > way to deal with it is to wear some obvious signs of wealth like > a $10,000 watch. In a pinch you can give them the watch. ;-) > (Some of the nurses won't know what it is, but the doctors will, > I am sure.) Except that very likely you'll be in the Emergency Room in the first place, because you got shot during the mugging for your watch -:) Does that count as "evolution in action" too? :)

1 0

Re: Protocols for Insuran
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com wrote: > Actually, the real "sucker rates" are the amounts small > > businesses pay for insurance. > The big businesses (who can buy in bulk) get a pretty reasonable > deal for what they get. The smaller companies who cannot > bargain the price down get screwed. (The rate my wife's > employer was paying was close to double what my insurance costs > and it covered ALOT less.) > I seriously doubt that most people could afford to self-insure > at the going rate. (Not unless they have some serious income > they want to get rid of.) Think of this as "evolution in action" <G>

1 0

Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:35:38 +0000 > From: Tim Griffiths <T.G.Griffiths(a)exeter.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT > Mark wrote: > > > > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Indeed. Yet in a democracy, any two other members are assumed to know > > better than me, and any 51% to know better than the other 49%. > > > > Democracy is merely the scoundrel's last attempt to maintain the divine > > right of kings by coverting it into the divine right of the elected. > > > > >Which means we should have the lowest number of incarcerated individuals > > >instead of the most. I didn't write any of this. Please be more careful with your quotes. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

3 2

Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:28:52 +0100 (MET) > To: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > > It doesn't make it right whether it is the Khmer Rhouge, SOG, Shinning Path, > > The SLA, CIA in Laos or Columbia, Ruby Ridge, KAL 007, TWA 800, IRA, SDS, > > Black Panthers, or some old lady in Ill. who wants to committ suicide. > > Suicide is hardly a terrorist action. [Names withheld to protect the terminaly stupid] It isn't the act your moron, sorry; more-off, it's the reason. Pay attention and quit napping, this isn't television. There are no commercials. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ 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: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 04:13:59 -0800 (PST) > From: mark(a)unicorn.com > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT > Jim Choate wrote: > >If we as individuals can't make our own decisions about what is best for us, > >what makes you think some stranger will do any better? > > Indeed. Yet in a democracy, any two other members are assumed to know > better than me, and any 51% to know better than the other 49%. No, it doesn't - your definition of democracy is a simplistic if not childish view intended to cast democracy in the worst possible light imaginable. What you describe is a democracy which has no bill of rights or explicit limitations on the issues that the democratic body can vote on. Obviously there is nothing in the definition of a democracy that prevents those founding the democracy from stating: "Congress shall make no law respecting ..." or "The rights of the people to .... shall not be infringed." Grow up. > Indeed, thereby proving that democracy *doesn't* work. You've proved nothing except your a priori dislike for democracy because you want to convince others you are an angel. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ 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: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 02:57:51 -0600 > From: TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)) (fwd) > Jim Choate wrote: > > > Juries are supposed to be composed of your peers, not who the prosecution or > > defence believe will best support their case. It should be that the first 12 > > poeple called who don't have a valid excuse to be excused are the jury, the > > next 12 are the back-ups. > > You're way off base here, Jim. As a matter of fact, the government > goes to extraordinary lengths to make certain that we get a jury of > our peers. No, I just hit a home run. The fact is that if the defendant is facing a charge that can result in the death penalty *NO* juror will sit on that jury who will a priori eliminate the death penalty as a potential verdict. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ 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: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:40:35 +0000 > From: Tim Griffiths <T.G.Griffiths(a)exeter.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > > > We hear on TV etc people saying "If this draconian measure saves the > > > life of one innocent child its worth the loss of my right to walk in > > > the park, or whatever". This is clearly shit, but can people suggest a > > > sensible measure of when new legistlation is justified? > > > > Is this a trick question, or sumpin'? > > > > If not, then the answer is "the Constitution." > > I was trying to start from somewhere more fundamental than the > Constitution, but if I understand you, you're saying that an arbitary, > allbeit 'self-evident', set of limitations are set down (i.e. the US > Constitution) at some point in time and no new laws should be made that > contradict this set of rules. > By doing this, aren't we putting a dictatorial limit on whatever > democracy we come up with? In effect saying "we're all equal under God, > and God wrote the Constitution"? No, that is not the way it works at all. [Geesh] Let's start from the beginning, shall we. Our government does *NOT* start with the Constitution [one spin-doctor approved lie down]. It starts with the Declaration of Independance. It defines those self-evident issues of a democracy we are speaking of. Further, the founding fathers [NOT just the framers of the Constitution; second spin-doctor approved lie down] felt those rights were God given because they were inherent in being a human being, not something like a drivers license you had to prove you were responsible enough for and could be taken away [third spin-doctor lie down]. You got those rights (barring social institutions to the contrary, which are a challenge to overcome for democracies - and we fail miserably) because you breath and shit - period. [fourth spin-doctor lie down] Even my being a pantheist, and hence rejecting the concept of divinity, allow that we have rights which are inherent in our existance (Nature's God, which for me are synonymous). Rights that can only be taken at the pain of death or continued violence [fifth spin-doctor lie down]. That violence abrogates the social contract between myself and others (ie society) because it does not allow me the latitude that is mine by simple existance [sixth spin-doctor lie down]. Allow me to quote the first and part of the second initial paragraphs of that founding document: When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of Abuses and Ursurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. *THAT* is the definition of democracy, *NOT* some bullshit definition that a government spin-doctor spews forth in a government spin-doctor institution better known as a school telling you that some ephemeral 'rule-of-law' is the ultimate authority in this country [seventh spin-doctor lie down]. Political oppressors are like the Terminator, you can't reason with them and it will kill you. They're meat-bop (thanks Rudy!) machines with faulty processors. Democracies should be based on cooperation, NOT compromise (ie giving up rights to make sombodies elses job easier). [eighth spin-doctor lie down] Tim and others predict a revolution, while I agree in principal that a social and political revolution and hence an accounting (hopefuly with about another 50 amendments to the Constitution) is coming I disagree that it will or needs to be violent. This ilk of 'patriot' hates so much they have become what they hate - users of violence to get their way and to hell with the consequences. They're simply the next wave of oppressors if we let them. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:06:00 +0000 > From: Tim Griffiths <T.G.Griffiths(a)exeter.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > But the bit I'm trying to get at. Doesn't the idea of what those rights > are change from social group to social group? Do they? My thesis is that people are people and the basic things that make them satisfied and productive are the same: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Prove that people over time change their base behaviour or that that base behaviour is fundamentaly linked to the societial more's that they are exposed to. Note, that there is a distinct difference between these base behaviours and how they express them. > Furthermore, doesn't having > a irrefutable set of laws place a fundamental (ist) limit on a > democracy that exists under them? Who, other than you, has said that there was a such thing as irrefutable laws? Laws or not rights, if your assertion is this please be so kind as to demonstrate that as well. Demonstrate that such a concept as irrefutable laws has an existance as anything other than idle mental mechanations. > Is it possible to have a true > democracy without the assumption of a 'higher authority'? Where in a democracy is there the assumption there is a higher authority than the governed? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

[SURVEY] pgp5.x / pgp2.x users
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fill out and email me, and I'll tabulate results, and post here and on ietf-open-pgp: ==============================8<============================== mini straw poll on pgp2.x and 5.x usage: 1. What are you currently using for everyday use: 2.x or 5.x [ 2 or 5 ] 2. What proportion of people you use PGP to communicate with are using 5.x [ x / y ] 3. How many of the 5.x users you communicate with are cypherpunks [ z ] ==============================8<============================== The question has come up on ietf-open-pgp as to how important it is for the OpenPGP standard to support backwards compatibility with pgp2.x. The tension arises because 2 of the 3 cryptographic algorithms used in pgp2.x are patented in some parts of the world. (IDEA being patented in Europe, and US; and RSA being patented in the US and Canada). The IETF generally likes to steer clear of patented algorithms as MUSTs in standards. This encourages implementations, etc. (Personally I'm pretty keen on this point, though I would like more backwards compatible pgp5.x implementations -- I've already received emails I can't read without resorting to the pgp5 command line app, which doesn't work with my mailer integrated system.) So the question arises, just how many pgp2.x users are there. PGP Inc are pointing to the ratio of RSA keys to DSA/EG keys on keyservers as showing that pgp2.x users are in the minority. However that ratio is something like 20,000 to 75,000, and I'm sure we've heard statistics in the past about there being literally millions of pgp 2.x users. One suspects that either many pgp 2.x users aren't using keyservers (I know several cypherpunks who have something against key servers and avoid them for perceived security or privacy reasons), and/or the pgp2.x user base is exaggerated. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

Free Software!!
by freesft＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Have you been looking for the best way to advertise your product, service, or web site on the Internet only to find that nothing seems to work? At Selective Marketing we are giving away over $700.00 in free promotional software that will increase your business by at least 50% overnight. Come check it out at <http://207.207.204.57> Be sure to mention Rep # 6682 when calling...

1 0

Artwork for Webmasters...
by art.w＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Webmaster, Hi, my name is Peggy L. Emmel with Nikki's Web Creations. We would like to offer our artistic talents to enhance the presence of your Web Pages. We specialize in custom graphics for your entire site to include, logo's, image maps, buttons, backgrounds, and web advertisement banners. Several of our banners have been featured on Lycos and National Television! You can offer your clients that artistic, personal touch that makes their site stand out in a crowd! Adding this kind of value to your sites, will bring you more profits...and more customers as well. Visit <A HREF="http://www.nikkiscreations.com/artwork.htm">Nikki's Custom Graphics</A> to review our artwork. For more information on our services, or any other design needs, please hit reply and send us your name, daytime and evening phone numbers along with the best time to call. One of our Design Consultants will contact you, and send any additional information you may need. Sincerely, Peggy L. Emmel Senior Design Consultant Nikkis Web Creations ------------------------------------------------------> This message brought to you by : High Energy Advertising Internet Advertising Services http://www.high-energy.com advertise(a)high-energy.com 800-955-6771 If you would like to have your business or service advertised via the Internet give us a call !! We also offer Hosting Programs, Database, Website Promotion, Internet Marketing and Consultation. Re-seller opportunities are available! ********************************************************************** If you prefer not to be on our Webmaster mailing list simply hit reply and type remove. You will be removed from any future mailings. **********************************************************************

1 0

Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) wrote: >No, it doesn't - your definition of democracy is a simplistic if not >childish view intended to cast democracy in the worst possible light >imaginable. I don't need to cast dumbocracy in a bad light; one look at the news does far more than I ever could to show the evils of government. >Obviously there is nothing in the definition of a democracy that prevents >those founding the democracy from stating: >"Congress shall make no law respecting ..." Indeed. And such statements are almost totally worthless; the US Constitution includes such statements, yet it is rapidly becoming the world leader in repression and spreading that to other countries as fast as it can. The best such limits can do is slow the spread of government, not stop it. Perhaps you should try a few games of Hofstadter's 'Nomic', which is based around this problem? >Grow up. I have grown up; I come from a strongly socialist family, yet I soon learnt that my and my family's political beliefs were wrong. Most people just continue to parrot the same beliefs all their lives. I could live with a libertarian minarchy, or even the US Constitution if it were upheld, but neither society would be as stable as anarchy. >You've proved nothing except your a priori dislike for democracy because you >want to convince others you are an angel. Sorry? I have no desire to govern others, so I don't have to be an angel. Indeed, the fact that there are no angels is another strong argument for anarchy over government. If power corrupts, then eliminate the power. If self-rule is good, then government is bad. If you believe in both self-rule and government, you've proven nothing but that your beliefs are contradictory. Mark

1 0

Did It Really Happen? Did The Holocaust Really Happen?
by cary＠t-1net.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not according to the Jews in Kurt Saxon's documentary "The Bogyansky Mystery". You can read it at: http://www.kurtsaxon.com/index-jb.html /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This Message was Composed using Extractor Pro Bulk E- Mail Software. If you do not wish to receive any future e-mail from us, simply do nothing. Your e-mail address has been stored and will never be used again unless you ask to be placed on one of our return mailing lists. And you can only do this by going to Kurt Saxon's Home Page and opening the Atlan Formularies Spamming Protocols link and following the directions therein. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 0

RE: North CA cops skip preliminaries, get straight to torture
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May ('>') wrote: >> This non-violent demonstrators were willing to accept the agreed >>upon punishment/cost of their actions in protest of the actions >>of their public servants. Their public servants, as usual, chose >>to to act in the manner of savages who are incapable of holding >>to the rule of law which they use to justify their confiscation >>of the citizen's right to bear arms in the face of tyranny. > >Excuse me, but this modern notion that protesters get to "make a deal" >about the fines they'll eventually pay is bogus. If they're trespassing, >they're trespassing. They don't get to take over Intel's factory, chain >themselves to the Evil Factory doors, and then make a deal to pay some >token fine. I think you're overreacting here (or I am misreading the above '>>'). If the sentence is life, with a chance for parole after 15 years, or if the sentence is death, that is what all those who practice civil disobedience should face -- what the actual sentence is. Applying pepper spray directly to eyes of _non-violent_ demonstrators is "cruel and unusual punishment", not just normal arrest procedures. (Violent demonstrators must deal with the consequences of their actions, including death.) [as usual -- just my own views...] ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

3 2