December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 3:17 PM -0800 4/3/97, Anil Das wrote: > Gee. I too wonder about that, since I am pretty > >sure the Feds don't have to time to read the cypherpunks > >list. > > This is simply not true. Various government agencies/employees read the > Cypherpunks list. Absolutely! I know quite a few who do. Before Oaklahoma I spent some time trying to persuade people to take notice of the net.activities of the likes of Ahmed Cosar, an agent of the Turkish secret service who posted inflamatory material about Armenia into various newsgroups under the name Hasan B. Mutlu and Serdar Argic. I'd guess that at this point the FBI has its own version of DejaNews. Its not hard to do analysis of USEnet, a bit of simple graph analysis. The real loons tend to turn up on the net.kooks list quites quickly in any case. > This is not a matter of thinking ourselves self-important; this is just a > simple observation that there aren't a lot of places with more incisive > analysis of issues of importance to these folks. Plus not everyone in the agencies are pro the administration line. I've met plenty of CIA and NSA people who think the GAK idea a pointless and futile waste of time. I suspect that most analysts read c'punks for the same reason I do, to get the widest possible range of views on what the posibilities for the future are. > Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is > another matter. Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government officials, some of my relatives are in government and have had well publicised assasination attempts against them. I think that Bell's on-list comments may well have been protected speech but I'm not sure about his off list comments. I'm scanning through my old mail files at the moment for missives from Bell re-reading them. I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to murder. It seems quite likely that Bell may have made a statement to an IRS official that in the context of his authoring the AP piece may have constituted a threat. If he spouted "Common law court" theories as often to the IRS as he did AP on cypherpunks he would certainly have been marked for scrutiny. Its not hard to connect with his AP piece which has been all over USEnet. According to the story they got it from a copy left behind in Bell's seized Honda. Phill

3 2

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by null＠myemail.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hallam-Baker wrote: > > Timothy C. May wrote: > > Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is > > another matter. > > Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. Horseshit. Anybody here ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? How about the American Revolution? War of Independece? French Revolution? You know, people who said "Fuck this shit, I've had enough." People who acted in concert to fight injustice and oppression. Perhaps Phill and Tim might want to take afternoon tea together and watch the tanks roll by, since Hitler only wants Austria... Poland...France...Britain........... I haven't noticed anyone on the list suggesting that they are going to wait to buy a gun until they hear a burglar/murderer coming through the window. If we are going to castigate someone for suggesting ways to take action against oppressive taxation, then perhaps we should call the Queen of England, tell her we're sorry for our forefather's error in judgement, and that we'll start flying the Union Jack again. > If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being > presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. Excuse me? Only people whose views you personally approve of should be presented as a representative of cypherpunk views? I hate to burst your bubble, Phill, but everyone on the list is a representative of cypherpunk views and people outside the have a right to pick and choose the various viewpoints as they see fit. > some of my relatives are in government and have > had well publicised assasination attempts against them. So did Hitler and Mussolini. > I think that Bell's on-list comments may well have been protected > speech but I'm not sure about his off list comments. Then why bring it up? To cast vague aspersions? > I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or > for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim > demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was > possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. So you're calling Tim a blowhard who likes to play at anarchy but lacks the balls to propose anything concrete? * {* DisinfoTranslation Technique (c) Greg Broiles} > Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell > on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his > AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to > murder. Your own propensity for murderous thoughts in no way reflects on other individual's interpretations of Jim Bell's intentions. Certainly Jim Bell tended to answer questions such as, "What day is it?" with a speech on AP, but what do hashcash programmers discuss? Hashcash. What does anyone talk about? The things they have an active interest in? So what's your point? > It seems quite likely that Bell may have made a statement to an > IRS official that in the context of his authoring the AP piece > may have constituted a threat. It seems quite likely that Hallam-Baker is inventing facts which don't exist because he is being paid to do so in order to do a character assassination on Jim Bell. Anyone else want to jump in with off-the-wall claims about what is "likely" and what is not? It seems to me that many list members have their heads further up their ass than the Feds, since they don't even view Bell's threats serious enough to even arrest him. They are on a simple fishing expedition to try to find a cause to harrass him into shutting the fuck up. A *true fact* (rather than vague bullshit about what is "likely") is that John Perry's remailer *was* used to send direct threats to a government official. So, Tim and Phill, which one of you wants to step up to the plate and be the first one to attempt to ostracize him so that his views about the need for anonymous communications will not be taken as representative of the cypherpunks views? Or is Perry's implementation of a system that can be abused to be allowed while Bell's theoretical design of a system to fight oppression is not to be allowed? Does the government wait until the enemies missles are launched to start preparing plans for defence and counter-attack? It is outright riduclous to suggest that individuals and groups should act otherwise, and contrary to their own self-interest. Government and corporate entities are regularly castigated on the cypherpunks list as thugs who must be dealt with in one manner or another. Various levels of action are suggested in relation to the severity of the infringement on our interests. Jim Bell's pet project was to work on a solution for problems which reached the point of requiring the ultimate action--total removal of the threat. Each cypherpunk had his or her own views of what constituted a problem of that magnitude. To suggest that any cypherpunk should not be allowed to express his or her opinion in regard to who his solution might apply to, and why, is not much different than saying that none of our discussions should address specific issues, only generalities. This is akin to saying that we cannot mention older people, or sick people, when discussing euthanasia. Excuse me, but someone is shooting at me. I need to go buy a gun... TruthMonger ************************************************************************ This Anonymous email has been relayed by http://www.MyEmail.net/ MyEmail.Net is a free anonymous mailing service. No records indicating the identity of person(s) who originated this message are retrieved electronically, or as a requirement to submit. Your email address can be blocked to prevent further contact from this service, please refer to the URL above for instructions on how to do so. ************************************************************************

1 0

Hallam-Baker messes himself.
by null＠myemail.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hallam-Baker, pissing all over his own train of logic, wrote: > It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital > cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be > enforced. > No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, > nor any other such cover. > > I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in > court if asked. What are you going to testify to? To Bell's scheme not being a threat to anybody because it would never work? That it is nothing more than a theoretical exercise which does not present a danger to a single soul? That it is preposterous of the government to prosecute someone on the basis of a pie-in-the-sky, preposterous idea? I'm certain the government is anxiously awaiting your testimony, as well as that of a number of others on the list who seem to think that Jim Bell is such a powerful and evil force that his mere thoughts and speculations are an overwhelming threat to civilization as we know it. Everyone who thinks they can implement Jim Bell's AP system in the near future, raise both hands. Now bend over backwards, placing your head near your rectum. Now... TruthMonger ************************************************************************ This Anonymous email has been relayed by http://www.MyEmail.net/ MyEmail.Net is a free anonymous mailing service. No records indicating the identity of person(s) who originated this message are retrieved electronically, or as a requirement to submit. Your email address can be blocked to prevent further contact from this service, please refer to the URL above for instructions on how to do so. ************************************************************************

1 0

Re: Jim Bell raid
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I asked Jim last night if he wanted any of the documents associated with the raid published and he said not yet: That the local papers were publishing selected parts to inflame reader lust. That the feds had set it all in motion with lurid affidavits, with press invitation, with paraded troops and battle armaments to fit the show and tell tinhorn war gamers seeking more funding -- tax time at hand. He seems bemused that his script was followed so dutifully for Act 1. And awaits the next acts, instigated not only by his taunts but by the national campaign to divert attention from TLA/LEA snafus. In this spirit, for a truly homicidal, bloodstirring script read the National Defense Authorization Act for 1998: http://jya.com/nda98.txt Now that's Assassination Politics to feed the lust of the best and brightest of all nations, if not that of a few of the overmuch AP protestors here. Jim's telephone number: 1-360-686-3911 For a reality check compare Jim to the world's presidents, parliaments, high-tech industrialists, spies and media infowar gamers trying valiantly to alarm the Disney-narcotized citizenry.

2 1

US Domestic GAK
by Steve 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has Anyone heard about this????? sorrin privsoft(a)ix.netcom.com Clinton administration has new encryption proposal Network World via Individual Inc. : Washington, D.C. For months the Clinton administration has lobbied for its version of key escrow that largely focused on encryption export. Now in its first formal legislative document, the White House is asking that its policy also apply to data encrypted within U.S. borders and that law enforcement be given access to that data based on a simple request from a law enforcement or government security agency. The U.S. Attorney General will set up the specific rules for written authorization. Civil liberties groups highly critical of the White House plan pointed out that under the basic guidelines it will be easier for law enforcement to get encryption keys than to tap phones, which requires a warrant or court order. The administration does not just face domestic opposition to its proposed policy. The international community, represented by the 29-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), also has not rallied behind the Clinton cause. After a year of study and intense lobbying by the U.S. Justice Department, the OECD, based in Brussels, Belgium, last week released the ``Cryptography Policy Guidelines,'' an eight-point document that recognizes nations may want to have access to cryptographic keys or un-scrambled plaintext. But the OECD guidelines fall far short of recommending key recovery as the preferred international approach. Some participants in the OECD crypto-policy effort were pleased with its outcome, including Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center here. ``There's a strong emphasis here on privacy and voluntary market guidelines,'' Rotenberg said. The OECD guidelines state that users should have a choice in cryptography, that cryptography should be driven by business requirements, and that the privacy of personal data and the secrecy of communications should be respected. Congressional cold shoulder So far, no legislators on Capitol Hill have embraced the ideas in the administration-drafted legislation, the Electronic Data Security Act of 1997, which also calls for nationally certified key-recovery centers for storing copies of encryption keys. ``From our point of view, it's a breathtaking expansion of law enforcement's surveillance au-thority,'' said Alan Davidson, staff counsel at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) about the draft bill. The CDT has posted the bill on its Web site, www.cdt.org. Commerce Department Un-der Secretary William Reinsch, whose office took the lead in drafting the bill, last week had no comment. The draft bill emphasizes that the key-recovery regulation is voluntary in the U.S., but opponents argue otherwise. The White House draft defines as the federal standard only digital certificates that work with key-recovery encryption products. And under the drafted bill, employees working in a government-certified key-recovery center would be spared any civil or criminal liabilities for disclosing decrypted information to a government agency. Through the economic in-centives and regulatory impact of the Clinton administration bill, ``they plan to severely limit [the products] you can choose from,'' according to Jim Bidzos, president of RSA Data Security, Inc., whose public-key technology is widely deployed in encryption products. ``The intent is to discourage the use of strong, unescrowed encryption in the U. S.'' [Copyright 1997, Network World]

2 1

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk pissed off Hallam-Baker to the extent that gave up all pretense hiding his support for a New World Order, and wrote: > I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have > been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of > communication. ...so the rest of us are just dirt under your feet? > I don't believe that people > are fit judges of their own cause as Bell and you do. So we should only fight for other people's causes, and not our own? Or not fight at all? It sounds to me like Jim Bell isn't the only one on the list with his own drug lab. Did you bring enough for everybody, Phill? <earlier> > Who decides what "innocent" was? <now> > Bells plan would lead to murder of innocent people. Well, I guess that now we know *who* decides. Send me a list of the "innocent" people, Phill, and I'll put them in the blocking list on my AP-Bot. -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

News from the Front
by ForeFront 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------- F O R E F R O N T - Taking the Chaos out of the Internet http://www.ffg.com Mailing List 3/31/97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents: I. News from the 'Front II. Tip o' the Day III. To the Front of the Class ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I. News from the Front Newsflash! ForeFront Launches Dynamic Duo, WebWhacker 3.0 and WebSeeker 3.0! WebWhacker, voted best offline browser by Internet World, has just leapfrogged the competition yet again! WebWhacker 3.0's new features include: *More than 200% faster performance; *Now save your "whacked" Web sites virtually anywhere, including floppy disks, Zip disks, magneto optical disks, and other removable media; *InstantUpdate, ForeFronts proprietary push technology, which enables WebWhacker to update itself across the Internet, instantly delivering the latest version of the application to your desktop; *Integrated WebManager allows you to easily organize and categorize your "whacked" sites; *Filter any unwanted Web pages and files by size, MIME file type, file extension, and server directory location; *Search your "whacked" Web sites more thoroughly with the use of Boolean operators; *The AppBar, which allows you to control WebWhacker in the background while browsing, can now become a floating toolbar; *"Whacked" sites can be exported into a compressed format for easy transfer and import; and *Downloading of background sounds, dynamic images, Shockwave objects, JPEG and GIF images, and Java applets. WebSeeker, the only way to find exactly what you need on the 'Net, again proves itself as the only comprehensive Internet search tool that finds exactly what you want. WebSeeker's new features include: *Over 100 pre-configured search engines, categorized into customized folders, such as News, Shopping, and Legal search engines. This allows you to tailor the search by selecting search engine categories that specialize in the specific types of information you desire; *Now you can add your own search engines to the pre-configured list, whether they are internet- or intranet-based. *No more switching between WebSeeker and your browser! With Microsoft Internet Explorer installed you can browse Web pages inside WebSeeker! *You can now launch WebSeeker with a single click! Simply click Microsoft Internet Explorer's "search" button; *Faster Phrase searching; *Ability to drag and drop search results onto the desktop or to a printer. *Substring matching, so a search for CAT also retrieves CATS Check out the informative press releases at: http://www.ffg.com/press/ww3press.html http://www.ffg.com/press/ws3press.html Download evaluation copies of the these new versions of ForeFront's industry leading Internet applications at: http://www.ffg.com/seeker/ http://www.ffg.com/whacker/ If you can't wait to own these valuable Internet tools now, visit: http://www.ffg.com/storefront.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Tip o' the Day Faster 'Seeker If you have a fast connection, such as a fractional T1 or faster, you can dramatically decrease the amount of time a search takes by increasing the number of simultaneous connections. We suggest increasing the number of simultaneous connections to 25 or 35. Experiment with more... (You can always decrease the number of connections) Steps: 1. Click Tools/Preferences 2. Select the Network tab (or in Version 3.0, Search Limits) 3. Change the number of Simultaneous Connections 4. Click OK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- III. To the Front of the Class Bring Web excitement to the head of your class - even if you dont have an Internet connection! ForeFronts WebSeeker, WebWhacker, WebPrinter and ClickBook make utilizing the Internet a snap. Used by over 800 schools and universities world-wide, ForeFronts products are empowering teachers to find, collect and share the vast wealth of knowledge available on the Internet. Let ForeFront bring the Internet into your classroom by visiting: http://www.ffg.com/edu/edu.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from the ForeFront mailing list, please send mail to nonews(a)sldc.ffg.com or go to http://www.ffg.com/press/

1 0

Save Money...Own your own Cable Descrambler!
by Mid West Electronics 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don't let your cable company force you to pay OUTRAGEOUS equipment costs to receive basic/premium channels. We are Midwest Electronics, Inc. America's LARGEST PROVIDER of cable converters and descramblers and we feel you shouldn't have to pay TOO MUCH any more! The Communications Act of 1996 approved by Congress and signed by President Clinton in February 1996 now allows cable subscribers to purchase cable converters and descramblers from independent vendors. We have 18 years experience in the cable industry. We carry most makes and models of cable converters and descramblers including Jerrold, Scientific Atlanta, Tocom, Zenith, Pioneer, Panasonic, Novavision and More. Our prices start at just $150.00. *** SPECIAL INTERNET OFFER *** Call us today at (800) 648-3030 M-F 8:00-5:00 C.S.T. with the model number of your cable company's converter/descrambler, usually found on top of your television, and receive a FREE Battery Charger with any combination unit purchase. *** ONLY THOSE NOTIFIED BY ELECTRONIC MAIL ARE ELIGIBLE *** Our SPECIAL Internet Promotion ends April 15th, 1997. When calling please provide us with your e-mail address in order to receive your FREE BATTERY CHARGER!!! If are unable to take advantage of our offer at this time, but would like to receive our FREE CATALOG reply to us via e-mail at cableus(a)internetmedia.com with your mailing name or visit our WEBSITE at: http://www.midwestcable.com More about us: * 30-Day Money Back Guarantee! * We Service What We Sell! * Personal Assistance Hotline! Note: No sales to TIME-WARNER or PARAGON cable franchise areas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you would like to continue receiving updates on prices and other information from Midwest Electronics you may REPLY and type SUBSCRIBE in the SUBJECT line. Otherwise, your address will be promptly removed from our lists and no further attempts will be made to contact you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk pissed off Hallam-Baker to the >extent that gave up all pretense hiding his support for >a New World Order, and wrote: Yeah, like I wrote in "The Laird of the new world order". ... They said they worked for freedom but they had another plan. The only new world order is, obey your Uncle Sam. Must be in deep, deep cover. >> I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >> been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >> communication. > ...so the rest of us are just dirt under your feet? I was pointing out that the attempt to claim that the rest of us poor slobs didn't see Jim Bell as a shining Messiah was not because we were too stupid to understand him as claimed. >> I don't believe that people >> are fit judges of their own cause as Bell and you do. > So we should only fight for other people's causes, and not >our own? Or not fight at all? I think that before you murder someone because you think they are wrong you need to at the very least put the matter to an impartial arbitrator. Phill

2 1

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote in article <5i3tpu$86h(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > At 1:51 PM -0600 4/4/97, null(a)myemail.net wrote: > > > Horseshit. Anybody here ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? How > >about the American Revolution? War of Independece? French Revolution? > > You know, people who said "Fuck this shit, I've had enough." People > >who acted in concert to fight injustice and oppression. If you care to read the history of the times from unbiased sources you will find that the Boston patriots main gripe with Britain was not the tax on tea but the insistence of the British authorities on negotiating with the Sioux nation amongst others. It was the fear that the British would sign a peace treaty with the Indians recognising them as a sovereign nation that was the spark to the flame. Try reading "Lies my teacher told me" sometime. Given that the American revolution institutionalised slavery and lead to the theft of Indian land, and the French revolution the murder of about quarter of a million people they cannot be said to be entirely laudatory events. The national myths of the countries concerned nothwithstanding. People are not fit judges of their own cause. The civil war was started by the South who believed that the North might infringe their "right" to own others as property. > Note that I've never called for a witch hunt, nor have I called for his > posts to be censored out of the list. I chose a long time ago to filter > Jim's stuff into my appropriate folder for such stuff, and occasionally > took him out of the filter when he seemed (from occasional checks on what I > was filtering), to be discussing things other than his "Klaatu Narada > Nictoo" (or whatever) Final Solution. Same for me. I objected to Bell's AP proposal but not to his _right_ to post it. It was the tedious length at which he bored the rest of us with it that I objected to. Last I heard the Feds were concerned that he might have been putting AP into effect. Collecting the names and addresses of IRS officials, setting up a kangeroo court to try them, sending them demands, those sound like actions Bell would have serious difficulty in doing without giving someone reasonable cause to believe they were being targetted for murder. Phill

2 1

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk writes: > > > Jim is hardly the ideal poster boy for a free speech cause, but we should > > not distance ourselves from him when he runs into problems directly > > related to his advocacy of anonymous markets. That cuts too closely > > for comfort. We should defend Jim's right to discuss AP and any other > > institutions which may arise as a natural consequence of the capabilities > > engendered by cryptography. That is one of the main things this list is > > for. If they can silence Jim, it's going to be just a matter of time befor > > they go after someone else. > > I really cannot understand the posts I have been reading to the > effect that Jim Bell is a "loon" or a "terrorist" etc... > If we do not protect the freedom of expression of the loons, fuckups, > terrorists and Bells of this world it will be our freedom that is > threatened next. As far as I know, anyway, Jim`s AP essay (the > original plan overview) was perfectly sane and discussed the problems > of people using it to commit crime by killing an innocent person as > well as the advantagest of the plan. > I will allow that some of his subsequent posts have been a little > "loon" like but I have never considered him to be a foaming at the > mouth madman as some do. Someone said: "popular speech does not need protection". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Hallam-Baker is willing to testify
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

null(a)myemail.net wrote in article <5i3vrt$aad(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > Hallam-Baker, pissing all over his own train of logic, wrote: > > I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in > > court if asked. > > What are you going to testify to? He sent me a considerable amount of material in private email. Anonynous insults do not impress me. > To Bell's scheme not being a threat to anybody because it would > never work? That it is nothing more than a theoretical exercise > which does not present a danger to a single soul? I don't think it was a theoretical exercise. I think Jim scrambled his brain with a dodgy dose of amphetamines or similar. His posts sounded to me like the work of someone with a personality disorder who was working his way up to psychopath. >That it is > preposterous of the government to prosecute someone on the basis > of a pie-in-the-sky, preposterous idea? It may sound loony to you but I have no doubt that Jim believed what he wrote and intended others to act on it. I'm not sure that he acted on it himself but I would not be at all suprised. Phill

1 0

Tim May badmouths anonymity.
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > > This kind of ad hominem is to be expected from someone hiding behind > anonymity. What a hypocrytical crock of shit. Are you concerned that your pal, Hallam-Baker, won't be able to "testify" against me when the Feds kick in my door as a supporter of Jim Bell? > This message is clear-signed as being > from "TruthMonger," but, in fact, it could be from anyone. TruthMonger is a multi-user Net persona, meant to be used for that very reason. It is handy for lessening the ability of others to refuse to deal with presented facts and logic, instead choosing to attempt refuting opinions through grand pronouncements as to the writer's position in an imaginary elitist reputation capital scheme. > If it is from > the entity TruthMonger, and he wishes to have a persistent net personna, he > ought to look into PGP-signing his remailed messages, or using a nym > account. I have a persistent net persona. It's in your killfile. > And as for my views causing the tanks to roll through Poland, etc., this is > "magical thinking" at its worst. * {* DisinfoTranslation Technique (c) Greg Broiles} Either get your head out of your butt and learn to accurately read and/or interpret the statements of others, or get a job at C2Net. > > So, Tim and Phill, which one of you wants to step up to the plate > >and be the first one to attempt to ostracize him so that his views > >about the need for anonymous communications will not be taken as > >representative of the cypherpunks views? > > Fatuous nonsense. I'm not sure what "TruthMonger" means by "ostracize." There seems to be a tendency by some on the list to dismiss the posts of others by labeling them a 'loon' or somesuch derogatory term, rather than addressing their logic and message, per se. The fact that Bell tends to beat the AP drum ceaselessly may make his repetiveness boring, but in no way makes his system less valid than more mainstream methodologies. There is hardly anyone on the list whose missives don't occassionally skip like a broken record, but they are not labeled lunatics as long as they stay in the middle of the road. (You might say that Bell has a "persistent net persona.") TruthMonger

1 0

The Laird
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk pissed off Hallam-Baker to the > >extent that gave up all pretense hiding his support for > >a New World Order, and wrote: > > Yeah, like I wrote in "The Laird of the new world order". > ... > They said they worked for freedom but they had another plan. > The only new world order is, obey your Uncle Sam. I would like to see the complete work, if you have it available online. > Must be in deep, deep cover. I'm a conspiracy theorist. Any particular Crayola colour you would like me to use to draw the links between yourself and the Cabal? > I was pointing out that the attempt to claim that the rest of > us poor slobs didn't see Jim Bell as a shining Messiah was > not because we were too stupid to understand him as claimed. I once recorded a tune called, "He used to take acid, and now he's found God, but he's still got that look in his eye." I can't deny that Jim Bell seems to have "that look" in his eye. > >> I don't believe that people > >> are fit judges of their own cause as Bell and you do. > > > So we should only fight for other people's causes, and not > >our own? Or not fight at all? > > I think that before you murder someone because you think they > are wrong you need to at the very least put the matter to an impartial > arbitrator. I believe that the AP system pretty much spreads out the "arbitration" in much the same manner that the electoral system does. To me, it is similar to the inter-family dynamics that take place in Dr. Kevorkian's work, only on a more pervasive scale. I have always seen Jim Bell's work as a theoretical exercise that deserved a more serious analysis than he, himself, gave it. It pushed the envelope of issues that need to be dealt with, and did so in a manner that went beyond seemingly mundane matters wherein one could easily dismiss the long-term consequences of the train of logic involved. An analogy might be made to those who dismiss a little ass- grabbing as inconsequential when compared to rape, as opposed to those who view it as a precursor to rape. Despite my sometimes caustic, irreverent demeanor, I enjoy your posts, as they show a thoughtfulness which goes beyond some of the "Oh yeah! Sez who! Yo' mamma!" threads that sometimes prevail on various lists. So, don't change on my account, I hate you just the way you are. (Please note my aversion to adding little 'happy faces' to my posts. Humor be humor.) -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:36:54 -0800 > From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats > of people through AP--I don't find it at all surprising that an > investigation, involving search warrants, happened. > > Whether he gets charged, let alone convicted, and his conviction is upheld, > is a different set of issues. I have a problem with this process, it denies due process to the accussed. This should be the issue of concern with Jim Bell, mainly the fact that his property was taken on a warrant issued on oath of probable cause. If you have enough evidence ("I think he is dangerous judge" is not evidence except to a fool) to produce a search warrant then you should have to explain the results of that warrant to a judge and that means the accussed has a right to be there and have a say. Since his property was taken for public use, protection of public officials, then those agencies should pay him for the property and the relative worth of the work on it OR do what Constitutionaly is correct. This is mainly at the point of delivering the search warrant a notice of appearance before a court should be presented to answer those charges. He has a right to face his accusers FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE CASE as well as legal council by public appointment if required. Under the current conditions Jim Bell is being forced to testify against himself (some argue that this is not so, if that is true why then are we 'secure in our property and papers'?) and has been denied the right to legal council, as well as facing his accusers in a court. If this sort of check and balance is not in place then we get law enforcement confiscating property without charges being filed and hence no legal issues for the accussed to defend. This could be used to shutdown a newspaper (for example) because of articles that it printed. It nearly put Steve Jackson out of business. This is what you should be pissed off about. Jim Bell, as we all do, carry our own crosses. The issue is not whether Jim Bell committed a crime but rather did the law enforcement agencies follow the Constitution they swore to uphold. Let's see, I believe the courts say that a 72 hour stay in jail without charges being filed is the limit for habeas corpus. How about the accussed has to appear before the judge along with the police within 72 hours. At that point charges could be filed, charges dropped, payment for property, or return of property could be handled. If the defendant doesn't appear then a bench warrant can be issued on the premise that an attempt to flea is in process. If the police don't show or can't produce a good enough argument the charges get dropped and property returned along with reimbursment for any damages to the property or losses incurred by its confiscation (the money should come from the polic budget). If the police refuse to act then a Writ of Habeas Corpus could be issues demanding the return of the property to the possession of the court or face criminal action. Police in a democracy should be conservative in action. Bet you EFF don't do this one for free. "Oh my god, an ex-drug dealer..." instead of "Oh my god, a poor game publisher...". Fucking hypocrites. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Bell's Phone Number
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Correction for Jim Bell's telephone number: 1-360-696-3911 It's available via Information, assisted by the original story: "James D. Bell, who reportedly lives with his elderly parents at the home at 7214 Corregidor Road Vancouver, WA."

1 0

NDA98 URL
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The correct URL for the National Defense Authorization for FY1998 is: http://jya.com/nda98.htm (176K)

1 0

Jim Bell warrant, affidavit, return
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the way to get copies of court filings in far-away places: Call the court. Tell the person who answers the phone that you want to get a copy of pleadings (or whatever it is you want a copy of) filed in a particular case, giving them as much information as you have about the case. When you're looking for a search warrant, that information will usually be the address of the property searched and the date/time that the search began. In other cases, it's the case number/file number, (or, more annoying for the clerk, the name of the plaintiff and/or defendant). If the clerk can find the file based on the information you had, and the contents aren't sealed, they'll give you the name/phone number of a messenger service or copy service who will pick up copies from the court and then FAX or mail them to you. They usually charge somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 per page plus costs (like postage or phone) for this service. In Jim's case, the copy service's phone number is 206-383-1791. I received FAX copies of the search warrant, supporting affidavit, and return/inventory today. They're billing me for the charges incurred, which I expect will be in the neighborhood of $25. I'm planning to scan them tonight and make them available via the web, modulo personal information which I will black out. Comments about a good way to balance public interest/privacy when making the docs available are welcome. Have thought about publishing the documents as images (not text) to foil indexing, about eliminating "personal" info like SS numbers, address, and serial number(s) of seized items. I think the text of the affidavit is especially useful and instructive in terms of the understanding it provides into the law enforcement view of cpunks/anonymity/Internet issues. [Also received the Wassenaar Arrangement in response to my FOIA request, along with the Secret Service's response ("no records") and a denial of my appeal from the SF FBI office's "no records" response. Am planning to scan those, too.] -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)c2.net 510-986-8779 voice 510-986-8777 fax

1 0

Prior Restraint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As noted here on April 2, we've put on our Web site several of the docs of the Peter Junger suit against the Secretary of State: http://jya.com/pdj.htm One gives parts of Peter's article "Computers and the Law" which includes machine-readable code, code which is prohibited by the EAR from being placed on the Internet without a license (it is this "prior restraint" that Peter is challenging): http://jya.com/pdj003b.htm When Peter saw that I had put the article and code on my site, he telephoned immediately to say that the article should not have been sent to me along with the other material. He asked that it be removed because electronic publication could harm his case and put me at risk of prosecution. After discussion I declined to remove it, and thanked him for his advice. Yesterday, Richard Vasvari, one of Peter's three attorneys, called to politely ask that I remove the doc. And further explained how its electronic publication could harm the case and put me at risk. He said that he had notified Anthony Coppolino, DoJ, that the document was on the Web, as he was obliged to do by procedural rules. That they had discussed the ramifications. He did not say what DoJ intended to do. And, that he was obliged as an attorney to advise me to retain an attorney for my defense against prosecution for placing the doc on the Web. During this discussion with Mr. Vasvari I checked the access log for the prohibited doc and saw that DoJ had accessed it as well as several other files on me and my org. I told Mr. Vasvari this and he again advised me to remove the doc. Again, I declined. After chewing on this restraint of my publication by the attorneys, I decided to delete only the machine-readable code from Peter's article, leaving the text which explains why the electronic publication of the code is the crux of Peter's First Amendment case. On the assumption that his prior restraint claim is more important than mine. Take at look and let me know what you think. Should I have deleted the code or left it in the public domain where it belongs? Am I right to comply with the attorneys' first claim on prior restraint? Meanwhile, anyone worldwide who want the article with the code intact, send me an email for instructions on how to get it. Use the subject: Restraint

1 0

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > > At 6:05 PM -0500 4/4/97, Mark M. wrote: > > > I don't know any anarchists who oppose > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >contract law or argue that anyone has this right. The cryptography employee > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >who releases trade secrets or sabotages products is violating the company's > >property rights; whether it is moral or not is irrelevant. Again, I don't > >think you will find any anarchists who would dispute this. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ * {* TCM's emphasis} > > Count me as one who thinks things are not this easy. Ultimately, all > decisions to obey or ignore or sabotage contractual relationships is a > personal one. I agree. Obviously Mark doesn't know enough anarchists. Pardon me for beating my Hitler analogies to death, but when Hitler was Fuhrer, the trains ran on time. I have no problem with those who supported him for this reason. However, as his administrative policies began to increasingly infringe on the lives of others, it was up to each participant in his ruling party to decide for themselves what was an acceptable level of power/control over the citizens, and what was not. My own rule of thumb is to consider whether I would consider laws or regulations affecting the behavior and rights of others to be an infringement if they were applied to my own behavior and rights. > This issue has come up before. One name for the debate is "lifeboat > ethics." Suppose Alice has a contract not to trespass against the property > of others in the marina she belongs to. One night she falls off her boat as > she's leaving the marina. She can either _honor_ her contract, and drown. > Or she can grab onto Bob's boat and pull herself to safety, even though > she's just without any doubt vioated her contract. > > As I mentioned a few days ago, there are _some_ anarchists, notably Murray > Rothbard, who argued that Alice must choose death over violation of a > contract. Most anarchists I know think him crazy. I fully support Rothbard's right to choose death, but do not consider him as having any say in Alice's decision. > >Cryptography professionals have the *ability* to follow their consciences, > >but that does not excuse them from punishment resulting in infringing on > >their employer's rights or violating the terms of their employment. > > I've never argued that those who get caught breaking a contract shouldn't > face the consequences--providing others in the society honor the contract! This begs the question of who is to decide whether or not society is honoring their part of the contract. Arguing that society/civilization is doing a fairly decent job "for the most part" does not negate the fact that if an individual is taking it up the ass, he or she will not be inclined to take it sitting down. Native Americans are the prime example of a group who were subjected to severe penalties for failing to "honor the contract" while their oppressors felt free to dishonor the contract at will by virtue of superior firepower. Individuals have the freedom to sabatoge systems which they see as injust and oppressive. To suggest that the average person will abuse that right, and thus has no conscience, is to suggest that the average person has less right than corporations to decide what is right and wrong. It is my own belief that fears surrounding employees making morally based decisions of this nature are a result of the knowledge that many corporate entities fall short of meeting even rudimentary standards of moral values. TruthMonger

2 1

From the "pissing up a rope" file...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Priority: normal Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:36:05 MET Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Stephan Bleisteiner <SBLEISTEINER(a)JURA.UNI-WUERZBURG.DE> Organization: Uni Wuerzburg - Jur. Fak. Subject: NBC Europe Question of the week Comments: To: FIGHT-CENSORSHIP(a)vorlon.mit.edu To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM I thought some people on the list might feel very strongly about this issue and would like to cast their vote. The NBC Interactive Question of the Week: Should there be one international group that governs and controls web content? YES NO To cast your vote go to http://www.nbceurope.com Stephan --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

4 4

Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Pardon me for beating my Hitler analogies to death, but when >Hitler was Fuhrer, the trains ran on time. I have no problem >with those who supported him for this reason. However, as his >administrative policies began to increasingly infringe on the >lives of others, it was up to each participant in his ruling >party to decide for themselves what was an acceptable level >of power/control over the citizens, and what was not. Unfortunately, by the time he really impacted personal liberties it was too late, as his power was consolidated and the citizenery disarmed (1935). --Steve >> I've never argued that those who get caught breaking a contract shouldn't >> face the consequences--providing others in the society honor the contract! > > This begs the question of who is to decide whether or not >society is honoring their part of the contract. > Arguing that society/civilization is doing a fairly decent job >"for the most part" does not negate the fact that if an individual >is taking it up the ass, he or she will not be inclined to take it >sitting down. Yes, much better to hang from the ceiling. > Native Americans are the prime example of a group who were >subjected to severe penalties for failing to "honor the contract" >while their oppressors felt free to dishonor the contract at >will by virtue of superior firepower. Hopefully, what goes around comes around. > > Individuals have the freedom to sabatoge systems which they >see as injust and oppressive. To suggest that the average person >will abuse that right, and thus has no conscience, is to suggest >that the average person has less right than corporations to decide >what is right and wrong. > It is my own belief that fears surrounding employees making >morally based decisions of this nature are a result of the >knowledge that many corporate entities fall short of meeting >even rudimentary standards of moral values. "I don't want to rock the boat... I want to sink it." Putney Swoope > >TruthMonger

1 0

Assassination Politics (was Re: Feds reading this list, Jim Bell, and threats)
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is >> another matter. > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to >murder. Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic assassination? >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > >Who decides what "innocent" was? Certainly not the government. >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto >gives him the right to murder them. You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS as examples. But, he clearly stated that: "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse of others." >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political >> landscape. > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to >do so. > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed >attempts to prop up the scheme. If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of innocent people."? You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any >therefore no country would ever host it. Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could >> place a bet on their imminent death... > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of what is possible. >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine >with absolutely no safeguards. Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards against that. However, AP is different. AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater than that of some random individual. >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being >> killed. > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. H.L.Machen perceptively ts, merely suspected infringment. This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by >infringing his rights, without trial. Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. at's no surprise. It would be surprising for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect themselves from the state. >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right >> to kill me to protect himself? > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. You didn't answer his question. >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. >> >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their >lungs we can return to sanity. Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sgain, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous"? -=- A concerned citizen

1 0

AP / Mr. W. Remailer speaks out.
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. WinSock Remailer shot holes in Tim May's highly questionable claim-- "I support anonymous remailers for various purposes, but debate is rarely enhanced in such cases." --by producing an insightful post which actually quotes Jim Bell's own words, instead of blathering on endlessly about his or her own skewed interpretation of Bell's AP system, by writing: > On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >Timothy C. May wrote: > >> > >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is > >> another matter. > > > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. > >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being > >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. > > Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you > might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. > > >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a > >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more > >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government > >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have > >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. > > Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the > benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely > dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. > > >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or > >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim > >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was > >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. > >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell > >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his > >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to > >murder. > > Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government > not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. > Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic > assassination? > > >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an > >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP > >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent > >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to > >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > > > >Who decides what "innocent" was? > > Certainly not the government. > > >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, > >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > > > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should > >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the > >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto > >gives him the right to murder them. > > You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - > http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt > > He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS > as examples. But, he clearly stated that: > > "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of > "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will > die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every > demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim > that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any > form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any > such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize > this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim > Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've > described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is > the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it > simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. > > As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations > accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively > list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the > violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, > there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up > and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated > anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will > be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a > "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I > can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse > of others." > > >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is > >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political > >> landscape. > > > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. > >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to > >do so. > > > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital > >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be > >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed > >attempts to prop up the scheme. > > If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: > "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of > innocent people."? > > You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to > enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with > dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. > > >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, > >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result > >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would > >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be > >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist > >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any > >therefore no country would ever host it. > > Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed > to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete > anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers > may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, > all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through > email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. > > >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an > >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the > >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim > >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could > >> place a bet on their imminent death... > > > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. > > This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of > what is possible. > > >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, > >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine > >with absolutely no safeguards. > > Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out > anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards > against that. However, AP is different. > > AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts > by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials > who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater > than that of some random individual. > > >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have > >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being > >> killed. > > > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully > >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > > > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have > >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of > >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is > >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan > >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough > >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. > > H.L.Machen perceptively ts, merely suspected infringment. > > This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may > have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll > grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will > have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people > being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. > > >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. > >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by > >infringing his rights, without trial. > > Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, > or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. > > >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. > > Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps > you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. > Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely > ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. > > at's no surprise. It would be surprising > for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect > themselves from the state. > > >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in > >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right > >> to kill me to protect himself? > > > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. > > You didn't answer his question. > > >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, > >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in > >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, > >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. > >> > >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > > > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc > >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their > >lungs we can return to sanity. > > Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sgain, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme > is entirely preposterous"? > > -=- A concerned citizen So, please, let the potheads on the list (the silent majority) refrain from dismissing Bell's ideas due to his alleged use of the 'wrong' illegal drug. And let the drunkards (Toto) and former drunkards (you know who you are) refrain from embarrasing themselves by supporting every lunatic who has also destroyed the better part of their brain cells. I, on the other hand, am a licensed physician, and my use of narcotics is for legal medicinal purposes only. Dr. Roberts

1 0

Assassination Politics (corrected repost)
by nobody＠hidden.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Explanation: I am reposting this because my original post seems to have been inadvertantly(?) mutilated after the fact. On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >> >> Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is >> another matter. > >Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views. >If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being >presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views. Likewise, we wouldn't want your ramblings to go unchallenged, as you might be presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/pro-crypto views. >Besides anything else Bell was like the party bore with a >hobby horse he just has to talk about. I'm somewhat more >sensitive than most to advocates of murdering government >officials, some of my relatives are in government and have >had well publicised assassination attempts against them. Maybe they deserved them. Making politics more risky may have the benificial effect of thinning out the ranks of politicians to truely dedicated ones, instead of the fat parasitic beurocrats we have now. >I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or >for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim >demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was >possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up. >Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell >on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his >AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to >murder. Given certain political views contrary to your own, the government not only incites but commits murder daily, on a much greater scale. Is it so wrong try to put an end to this by a little strategic assassination? >paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > >> Not at all, Jim advocates the use of necessary force against an >> initiator of violence, as you would see if you have read Jims AP >> overview essay he does not advocate the use of AP to kill innocent >> people, indeed he does not intend it to kill anyone at all, Rather to >> act as a deterrent to government which would violate the NAP. > >Who decides what "innocent" was? Certainly not the government. >In Jim's world it was very clear that he decided who was innocent, >he decided what his rights were, he decided who he could murder. > >He limited the justifiable targets of AP to be those he thought should >be targets. His argument with the IRS appears to have included the >claim that they infringed his rights which under Bell's manifesto >gives him the right to murder them. You're completely off the mark. Have you read his essay at - http://www.prairienet.org/bureau42/public/apfull.txt He cited government officials involved in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the IRS as examples. But, he clearly stated that: "It would be impossible, for example, to set up some sort of "Assassination Politics Dictator," who decides who will live and who will die, because competition in the system will always rise to supply every demand, albeit at possibly a very high price. And if you believe the maxim that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," you wouldn't want to accept any form of centralized control (even, perhaps, that of your own!), because any such control would eventually be corrupted. Most rational people recognize this, and I do too. I would not have invented a system where "Jim Bell" gets to make "all the decisions." Quite the contrary, the system I've described absolutely prevents such centralization. That, quite frankly, is the novelty and dare I say it, the beauty of this idea. I believe that it simply cannot be hijacked by centralized political control. As I pointed out in the essay, if _I_ were running one of the organizations accepting those donations and offering those prizes, I would selectively list only those targets who I am genuinely satisfied are guilty of the violation of the "non-agression principle." But as a practical matter, there is no way that I could stop a DIFFERENT organization from being set up and operating under DIFFERENT moral and ethical principles, especially if it operated anonymously, as I antipate the "Assassination Politics"-type systems will be. Thus, I'm forced to accept the reality that I can't dictate a "strongly limited" system that would "guarantee" no "unjustified" deaths: I can merely control my little piece of the earth and not assist in the abuse of others." >> Also, an inevitable consequence of anonymity and untraceable ecash is >> that assasination pools will become a feature of the political >> landscape. > >No, it is not. If it were then Digital cash would never be possible. >Society simply would not allow it and they would be right not to >do so. > >It is because Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous that Digital >cash is possible. There is simply no way an AP contract could be >enforced. The betting pool is simply one of a long line of failed >attempts to prop up the scheme. If this is so impossible, then why do you later claim that: "I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of innocent people."? You do have a point, though. The actual payment would be hard to enforce. This is just a technical difficulty that can be overcome with dedicated effort. The idea is sound in all other ways. >No country could allow such a betting pool to operate from its soil, >nor any other such cover. If an IRS agent was murdered as a result >of a contract placed in an Anguilla betting pool the marines would >be landing the next week. No country that is small enough not to be >threatened by AP has the necessary millitary strength to resist >invasion. The benmefits of hosting the AP pool are marginal if any >therefore no country would ever host it. Ever heard of "virtual corporations"? They may exist without heed to national borders. The technical means also exist for complete anonymity on the internet, so that even the location of servers may be concealed (via. Onion Routers, and their ilk). Besides, all interaction with the corporation could be conducted through email, for which a rather high degree of anonymity exists already. >>Of course there is nothing to stop someone betting that an >> innocent person should be killed, this is a great problem in the >> scheme, but if this did occur the friends and family of the victim >> would normally have a pretty good idea who placed the bet and could >> place a bet on their imminent death... > >There is everythingt to stop bets being placed period. This is debatable, as much as you fasion yourself the arbiter of what is possible. >Of course the main use of AP would be to murder familly members, >business rivals etc. AP is simply an unrestrained murder machine >with absolutely no safeguards. Assassination transactions against anyone can be carried out anonymously right as we speak. There are absolutely no safeguards against that. However, AP is different. AP calls for a large pool of money donated in generally small ammounts by large numbers of individuals. The incentive for killing officials who garner retribution from whole populations would be much greater than that of some random individual. >> Besides which you seem not to have read and understood AP as you have >> ignored Jims comments about the problems of innocent people being >> killed. > >This "not understood" conciet is bogus. I have read and fully >understood Bell's article. It is in my view an incitement to murder. > >I have degrees in Nuclear Physics, Electronic Engineering, I have >been offered a contract for my book on the philosophy of >communication. If Bell can't communicate his idea to me then that is >his fault, his responsibility. I am arguing against the plan >he describes. Do not try the patronising "you are not clever enough >to understand this" line. In this case it is bluster. H.L.Machen perceptively noted, "It is a common fallacy of our time that a moron run through a university and decorated with a PHD will thereby cease to be a moron." So save your credentials for the tabloids. >> Question: Would you say the assassination of a statist who had badly >> violated the NAP (eg. A district attorney involved in prosecutions >> for drug dealing) was a crime? > >Absolutely for the simple reason that mob rule, lynch law is always >criminal. If there is no due process there is no justice. Ah, I see that you are in agreement with some of the framers of our great constitution in rejecting Direct Democracy, in favor of one or another flavor of elitism (Representative Democracy, lets say). Not that it's necessarily so bad, mind you, but at least you're showing your true colors. >Under AP rules the state has a perfect right to execute Bell. Bell >clearly intends the murder of government personel, therefore under >AP rules the government has the "right" to protect itself with AP >if it choses. If it decides on a less arbitrary sanction then >under AP principles that is a concession it is not required to make. The state has no rights. It is not a living individual. Only humans, and arguably animals, have rights. >AP eliminates process and with it proof. There are no steps proposed >by which an AP initiator should deterine whether his rights have indeed >been infringed. You're right. It is not the American Way of justice. However, that way is not itself above suspicion. The reliability of witnesses is suspect, even when they are sincere in trying to recall events. The judges are not above corruption, especially as they are in positions of power and power corrupts. Finally, the jury is not without its biases, even when its not also paid off, as can be seen from the controversial results of well publicised cases involving Rodney King and O.J.Simpson. >Therefore an instigator is not acting upon actual >infringement of rights, merely suspected infringment. This may or may not be true. Some donations to AP organisations may have no basis in fact whatsoever. The public is verry malleable, I'll grant you. However, others, such as large scale repression, will have very real basis in fact. Imagine the will of the Black people being harnessed through AP organizations during American Slavery. >The state employees suspect Bell plots infringement of his rights. >Therefore under Bell's own theory they have the right to respond by >infringing his rights, without trial. Of course. However, the state employees are few. The subjects, or "beneficiaries" of the state are many. >AP does not contain a coherent normative ethical theory. Of course it does, I don't think you've read closely enough. Perhaps you should stick to Nuclear Physics and Electrical Engineering. Scientists are notorious for not "getting" ethics, or completely ignoring them in wanting to stick to "pure" science. >> WRONG... The LEAs were the initiators of force and violators of the >> NAP, Jim Bell, were he to kill a member of the IRS, would not be >> commiting any crime, rather defending himself from a violation of his >> rights. > >He would empirically be guilty of a crime. The courts would consider >it murder and sentence him accordingly. Obviously, Paul is speaking of crime from Jim Bell's "ethical theory" perspective. Phil discounts the existence of that perspective, and answers from a "real world" perspective, completely missing Paul's point. >You may not consider him ethically to be guitly of something wrong. >I would disagree in that case. The LEAs have the right to initiate force >in accordance with the directions of a court order. They are pre-emtively >protecting their personal right to defend themselves and on behalf of >society pre-emptively protecting it. The state is self-perpetuating. Threats to the well being of members of it are taken seriously, that's no surprise. It would be surprising for the subjects of this state to wake up and pre-emtively protect themselves from the state. >> If I may make an analogy you are saying that were I to be attacked in >> the street, and I pulled a gun on the attacker he has a "moral" right >> to kill me to protect himself? > >He could well have that legal right in certain circumstances. You didn't answer his question. >> > However, I also think that there is a possibility that his statements, >> > either on cypherpunks or elsewhere, may have gone over the line in >> > terms of threatening behavior. It may be a moral weakness on my part, >> > but I am not too inclined to defend someone who advocates shooting me. >> >> Then you are of weak character and a closet statist. > >Good, now we have discovered that names like statist, liberal etc >are not insults even if bellowed by idiots at the top of their >lungs we can return to sanity. Ah, sanity. The Crusades seemed sane to the Christians. The Holocaust to the Nazis. Communism to the Russians. And now, a police state to the Americans. >I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in >court if asked. You're such a good patriot. >I don't believe that people are fit judges of their own cause as Bell >and you do. More elitism! Well, we're all lucky we have you, the agents at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and the IRS to protect us. Perhaps you'll do us all a favor and judge yourself superfluous and even harmful to "the people's cause" and put a contract on yourselves in an AP organization, when they come to be. I thought not. All we'll see are attempts are self perpetuation. >> Otherwise you have no more to worry about than you do now, AP simply >> allows people perfect (as near as possible) anonymity, You can have >> someone assasinated now without betting pools.... > >I have plenty to worry about, Bells plan would lead to murder of >innocent people. Again, what do you have to worry about if, as you say, "Bell's scheme is entirely preposterous"? -=- A concerned citizen

1 0