December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:38:21 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) > Who cares if it's legal or not. Lot's of people. > I think the conclusion of crypto-anarchy is that copyright seems > unlikely to survive as a schelling point for making money from > publications. Then crypto-anarchy is in for a big surprise. > You can make money from information provision by charging extra for > up-to-date news, or by charging so little that the cost from the > original provider is so low that it's not worth anyones time to > redistribute it, That's true now, why don't we see these effects... > or by providing higher bandwidth connection to the > net than the mirrors, Then why have the mirrors? There is also the issue of end-user bandwidth limitations and network delays that make this less than decisive. or by making do with click throughs from the > percentage of people who use the original rather than the cheaper > mirror. So, raise your rates to license the mirror. > To say it's "not legal to republish" is saying what? that you think It's saying it's not right for a 3rd party to derive profit or income from that work without a percentage being channeled back to the original author (at least for a limited time). ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Choate [mailto:ravage@einstein.ssz.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 1998 7:22 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the > Foregone (fwd) > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 21:59:18 -0500 > > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > > > Ah, but governments are just bunches of people. The problem with > > government (which is just an organization) is that problematic people > > use them to cause problems for others. That's why I'm against *having* > > such organizations. That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist. > > I'm still waiting for one of you guys to explain in detail how it works on a > day to day basis... It works much the same as it does today, except that there isn't a parasitic state wasting resources on feeding a useless band of politicians, or pointing guns at people who don't obey its whims. > > It's about the same thing. Of course, for it to do this, it must wield > > sufficient power to exact that retribution, which, as I've been saying > > over and over (as you've noticed) is the problem. > > Well I'll tell you this. You don't have a hope in hell of getting > anarcho-anything to work. People are not going to bust their butts simply to > see it get yanked away by a bunch of unregulated monoploies. Oh yeah, like they'd be much more willing to bust their butts simply to see 50%+ of it yanked away by "regulated" (by someone else) monopolies. You can't have malignant monopolies in an anarchy. If any monopoly behaved in such a manner, it would be opening itself up wide for competition. The only way malignant monopolies can survive is by the use of political power (i.e. force) to keep down competitors or to force patronage. And exactly how is your paragraph related to the one you quote above it? > > But they can only enforce laws after they have been broken. (assuming > > No, they can refuse to pass laws that don't infringe the basic principles of > the society. They can pass laws that take a conservative (not in the > political sense but in the wary manner) approach. It takes a system that has > sufficient check's and balances that no one group or even groups acting in > concert can take over the sytem to their good above others. It further can > operate on certain principles that govern the manner which the sytem > interacts with individuals. Ok, I'm going to tell this to you one more time, in simple words of no more than three sylables. I'll even put it in caps, so you can see it easier: LAWS DON'T GOVERN, PEOPLE DO. I keep pointing this out to you, and it keeps sliding in one eyeball and out the other. What's written on paper is *meaningless* if those in power choose to abuse their positions. > None of these can anarcho-anything touch upon. It assumes a priori that all > of these social mechanisms are pointless and serve no purpose. That people > will behave in a rational manner and that everyone is looking for equitable > and peaceful solutions to their problems. Anarcho-capitalists are very aware of social mechanisms. In fact, you may have noticed that they are what we rely upon. What you've been talking about, however, are *political* mechanisms. There's a difference. > > that it's a "nice" state --some states'll kill you *before* you break > > their laws). They do not protect people, they simply punish people they > > catch doing certain things. > > So, nobody is saying there aren't governments that are worse than the US. > What's your point (or is it just hyperbole)? It's what you missed in the above paragraphs. No government can prevent something bad (i.e. the violation of individual rights) from happening. No government can keep you safe. All any government can do is initiate force after the fact, and this is *not* protection. > > I agree, but I make no distinction between the government and the people > > running it. > > Ah, that is a fatal mistake for any political system or one who studies > them. And why would that be? I don't see any of them words written on them sheets of paper getting up and standing guard around *my* house. I just see the actions of the people who are allegedly enforcing them. Their behavior is not always correlated to what's written on their sheets of paper. > > The Constitution is a list of rules under which the > > government is supposed to operate, and if it is violated, the government > > no longer has any right to govern, and should by rights be shut down by > > the governed. > > No, those who break the law should be punished. Don't confuse the issue by > saying simply because one man is bad and caused the system to fail that > either all men or bad (which applies to you) I don't say that all men are bad. I simply say that not all men are good. Furthermore, I say that no man is good enough to rule another. This applies to you, me, and everyone else. > or all systems are broke (which > also includes yours). You're *almost* there. It means that all systems of state-governance are broke. I propose the abolition of the state -the lack of such a broken system. > A society is a group of people who act in concert under some sort of > mechanims, the result is a nation or government. Wow, that's very nationalistic of you. Nationalism wasn't always the way people viewed the world, you know, and society existed then. You keep saying that the state and society are somehow synonymous. This is simply not true --unless you're saying that if it were not for the existance of an organization which tells other people what to do, all human interaction would be impossible. > Governments have no rights, > they're not people; another serious problem with your view. Governments have > duties, responsibilities, and obligations. It's a job. Heh, if you've been listening, you'd have noticed that I never said that governments *have* rights -only that they assert that they have them. There are no group rights, only individual rights. Do you agree? If so, then how do you resolve the contradiction which develops when you notice that members of the state apparently have the right to do things that non-members cannot? Specifically, the "right" to initiate force, and the "right" to rule others? (both of which are of course non-rights, in my view) > > The central problem is that if the government was weak enough that it > > *could* be shut down immediately upon its first violation of its > > charter, it would be so weak that it could not offer a plausible > > guarantee of retribution for Constitutionally approved crimes. > > You punish people not governments. You change the laws governments act under > when the laws are found to be bad. If the act is offensive enough you forbid > the government from even considering the issue (as in the 1st Amendment). *Who* punishes the punishers? You fool, who do you think is going to tell the highest enforcer (who supposedly wields sufficient power to enforce anything) what to do? > > Yup, but you cannot assume that the arbiters of the rules will always > > have respect for the rules. > > It depends on how you write the rules and the sorts of systems you create > for review of such situations. *sigh* I'll say it *again*. If the rules are going to be ignored, it doesn't _MATTER_ how they're written. > > Rules have no power on their own --only > > that power given to them by people who agree with them. It is therefore > > foolish to concentrate power to enforce rules over other people --you > > cannot reasonably expect that the arbiters of said rules will not be > > corrupt. > > So, who said anything about people not being corrupt? Well, except you > anarcho-whatever folks. Who keep trying to convince folks that crime and > such will magicly disapear in your system of government. No one ever said that. I'm sure crime will still exist. Robbery, murder, etc. People go insane sometimes, some are anti-social, etc. What we *won't* have, however, are such state-sponsored crimes like taxation, "regulatory" taxes designed to keep competition away from state sponsored monopolies, and, of course, that highest of all crimes, the initiation of force on a worldwide scale. > > This is the standard line handed to anyone who argues for the abolition > > of government. As such, it's pretty easy to tear apart. :) > > > > First: You tell me that without government, I'll end up watching my > > No, what I'd say is that without taxes funding civil services you're going > to watch your house burn to the slab. Why? Why wouldn't the services which people obviously need and want suddenly vanish if the state didn't exist? People are obviously going to be willing to pay for services they want. You think that mail, fire protection, etc, wouldn't exist if they weren't state monopolies? What evidence do you have which supports this belief? It certainly runs counter to all available evidence (i.e. in *every other* service which isn't monopolized by the state). > > "house burn to the slab." This implies that fire departments wouldn't > > exist if they were not subsidized by the state. This is incorrect. > > After all, the first fire departments in the world were not publicly > > operated. > > Your right, they were a handfull of neighbors who happened to live near each > other. That isn't the question. The question is how do you plan on handling > the fire depts. duties in New York or Houston for example? Read to the end of the paragraph, my dear fellow, and you will be enlightened. You really should be a little more patient before you shoot off your mouth. > > In a free market, either the homeowner or the insurance > > companies will have an incentive to support fire departments. I'm > > Really? How do you figure that? Why do you expect that considering the level > of abuse in the insurance industry and the competition that drives it that > it won't get transfered into support of the fire departments without some > sort of outside regulation? What's that? Someone's running outside regulation in an anarchy? Your comment makes no sense in this context. > And remember, many people don't have insurance. They'll be able to buy it with the money they save in taxes and reduced prices due to the lack of taxation at each step in the production of the goods they purchase. > What happens when the ABC sponsored fire dept. gets to a non-insurance > house? Then they put out the fire, lest it spread uncontrollably to houses which *are* covered by ABC insurance. Then they present the homeowner with a bill, who in turn presents the bill to his insurance company. > Or one that's a XYZ house instead. How does the neighbor call the > right fire station when they notice the house burning? It is in the interest of the insurance companies (who run or finance the fire depts.) to make it easy for people to contact a fire department. (it saves on claims). Of course, what would probably end up happening is that local fire depts. would form, and be paid by insurance companies according to an agreed upon rate. A per-fire deal, if the frequency of fires is sufficient to support this, or a flat rate (which is nicer for the insurance companies, since they get to minimize their expenditures this way). > What happens when you > have somebody on a fixed or small income. Is your position that the paultry > sum they can raise will be taken seriously in regards compensating either > the insurance company or the fire dept.? Insurance companies don't have a problem collecting lots of small fees if they don't have to pay large ones very often. > What about the increase in > insurance premiums, what do you expect those to be compared to the current > tax rates? Significantly lower, overall, since we eliminate the middleman. > > willing to pay the local fire department a fee to stand ready to come > > and put out fires for me. > > You do it already, it's called taxes. Yes, but I'd rather do it *without* having a gun pointed at my head. I like to be able to choose which organization I want to give my money to (rather than having the decision made for me by armed men). Besides, money is fungible. For all you or I know, 100% of the money I've paid in taxes has gone to government boondoggles. > Yeah, reality certainly argues for civic participation and the willingness > of neighbors to come forward wit testimony. Perhaps the reason everyone hates each other so much these days is because they all know, deep down, that they're being screwed over by (as far as they can tell) everyone else. And they are, via that amazing organization, the state. Michael Hohensee

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

To: Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd) From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:30:05 -0500 References: <199811100205.UAA14919(a)einstein.ssz.com> Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:27:14 -0500 > > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > > (fwd) > > > No, it's that facists & socialists like yourself think we should be > > happy letting you decide what our social responsibilities are. > > Actualy, no. I'm perfectly happy to let you run around paying no taxes on > your income. The part you're not going to like is that I'm also not going to > let you reap one iota of benefit from those systems that are built and > developed by those of us who do pay taxes without a cost. And the cost will > be more than what the necessary taxes would have been. Hell, a free-market > capitalist shouldn't begrudge a tidy profit anyone under any situation. Of course not --if these services were provided in a free market. The problem is, they're currently provided by a monopoly which is willing to initiate force (or threaten to do so) against any competitors. Look at what happened to poor old Lysander Spooner when he started competing with the mail carriers back in the 19th century. This much must be obvious, even to you --after all, we've been telling you this, in different ways, *over* and *over* again. > > I am perfectly willing to pay for a police force. A police force > > that arrests ALLEGED rapists, treats them like human beings until found > > guilty and then deals with them as the law indicates. I am NOT willing to > > pay for a police force that spends most of it's time (well, aside from > > eating doughnuts, drinking coffee and collecting bribes) chasing after > > teenagers with illegal chemicals. I am not willing to pay for a police > > force that extorts money from these same teenagers. I am not willing to pay > > money for a police force that thinks it needs to arrest people for > > "loitering", "Mob Action", when it's defined as more than 4 people standing > > together in a public place, and ESPECIALLY when EVERY TIME THEY ARREST > > SOMEONE, IT'S THROWN OUT OF COURT. > > Neither am I, unfortunately paying taxes or not won't resolve those sorts of > issues. What is required is public over-watch groups (as was recently > implimented in Austin, pisses the cops off big time) and a change in the way > we run our prisons. As to the way people are currently treated prior to > being found guilty at a trial is an abuse of power on the part of those > parties involved and clearly cruel and unusual punishment for an innocent > man. > > Of course the *REAL* problem isn't the police. It's the people who make the > laws that the police are sworn to uphold and the judges with a social agenda > (that is not relevant to their job however much they may squeel like pigs). > That process *is* most certainly an ideal place to inject consideration and > respect for civil liberties and the purvue of government institutions. You again make the argument that everything'd be fine if it weren't for those nasty people who are abusing their offices. Surely you remember the flaw in that argument. If you don't, read my last post. > > > I am willing to pay for fire protection. I am not willing to pay > > for "universal health care", "welfare", and other such nonsense. > > The Constitution happens to mention that the federal government is detailed > with taking care of the general welfare. If you don't like that sort of stuff > then get a Constitutional amendment passed. Gee Jim, you're just as bad as those other statist pricks who like to reinterpret a word's meaning after it's been changed by decades of propaganda. For instance, I very much doubt that "welfare" and "forced charity" were synonymous, back in the late 18th century. > > very angry at having to pay for other shit (Senate Luncheons and Swimming > > Pools, the Militaries greatly inflated budget, all the waste that is todays > > federal government). > > Agreed. Throwing the Constitution away won't fix that and going to a > free-market monopolistic no-social-responsibility-at-all system such as > anarcho-capitalism is sure won't do it. You still haven't given any solid arguments as to why this is the case. You still ignore what we've been telling you and persist in believeing that all anarcho-capitalists are socially irresponsible at heart. (Even when the only apparent difference between me and you is that I'm not willing to point a gun at another person, or have it pointed for me, to make him perform his "social responsibility" to give me his property for one reason or another.) > > Yes, but a state can kill those who don't wish to be governed. Can > > and does routinely. > > Oh what hyperbole. You make it sound like the Nazi's have invaded. They > haven't. Really? The parallels we've seen recently have been striking. > Yes, there are misguided people out there. Yes, there are just > plain old corrupt people out there. That won't change irrespective of the > political system (or lack of one). You were correct right up until the open-parens. > They don't just go out and pick people > off the street and shoot them you're over-reacting and succumbing to a > paranoid delusion of persecution. Oh no, they haven't started doing that *yet* (as far as I know, anyway). They're steadily moving in that direction, however. > Unless you kill somebody or move a few tons of coke your individual chances > of being killed by the state is less than being struck by lightening. What's wrong with moving a few tons of coke? Who is harmed by coke who does not wish to be? > > But did you bother to read them this time? > > Actualy I read it twice before I even decide if I'm going to reply. > That would explain your responses. You read them so fast that all you see are little hooks for you to tack on your pre-recorded statist rants to, while your mind skims smoothly over those arguments which don't conform to your preconcieved notions. Michael Hohensee

1 0

an odd one at pub.anonymizer
by Quirk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--mark-- -hedges- reviews http://pub.anonymizer.com/~lcchrist The National Socialist Church of Christ espouses a turning away from the old era figuring Hitler and the current Destruction of the Earth Part II as the antichrist ending the cycle of Pisces. In the next phase of polar angular orientation we will understand each other, the universe, and grow into what we can be, because we figure out that otherwise we'll kill us all. They demand spiritual revolution. Therefore they demand obscene gestures and French Soltiers flipping dead cows with catapults at the Brits looking for the Holy Grail. They are not centric on any ism but expand their inclusiveness of what is sacred: the universe. Here I would speak of Godel and the beauty of the semi-organised chaos / order / balance / contrast forms inherent in the universe. In their site the message remains that Destruction is a necessary force in the world from time to time. That induces a feeling of condonence, not condolences. The site plays some interesting games with a lot of very uplifting philosophy for the understanding of the Holocaust and the genocide which occurs today, but then, using Biblical reference and passive-voice claims to the legitimacy of prophecy, it portrays Jesus risen again as Hitler: "Christ had warned us that when He would return, He would come as a thief in the night. Indeed, it had been prophesied that no man would know the day or the hour of His return. Indeed, no one could ever have expected that the Second Coming of Christ would mean His return to play the completely opposite role that He had played before, coming not to save the world, but to be its judge, baptizing not with water but rather with fire and force! The Second Coming of Christ came in such a completely unexpected fashion that mankind remained completely unconscious of His return and the fulfillment of Christian prophesy for more than fifty years!" The speaker is anonymous and does not provide the contact address.

2 1

ANNOUNCEMENT: RPK SECURITY ADDS C SOURCE LIBRARY AND SOLARIS PORT TO ENCRYPTONITE POWERFUL PUBLIC KEY ENCRYPTION TOOLKIT
by Jack Oswald / CEO / RPK Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have received this message because at some time in the past your name was submitted to our e-mail mailing list database. If you do not wish (or no longer wish) to receive announcements, updates and news concerning the RPK Encryptonite Engine or the RPK InvisiMail e-mail security products, please forward this message to remove(a)rpkusa.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTACT: Paula Miller Lyn Oswald Nadel Phelan, Inc. RPK Security, Inc. (831) 439-5570 x277 (212) 488-9891 paulam(a)nadelphelan.com lynoswald(a)rpkusa.com RPK SECURITY ADDS C SOURCE LIBRARY AND SOLARIS PORT TO ENCRYPTONITE POWERFUL PUBLIC KEY ENCRYPTION TOOLKIT SAN FRANCISCO, CA. November 3, 1998 - RPK Security, Inc. (www.rpkusa.com) a technology leader in fast public key encryption, announced today the addition of a Solaris port and C source library to its RPK Encryptonite Software Toolkit version 3.0. The RPK Toolkit enables integrators, developers and engineers to quickly and easily incorporate fast public key encryption and strong security into applications, without knowledge of cryptography. The RPK Toolkit, a software implementation of the RPK Encryptonite Engine, allows developers to build custom applications with strong encryption for information sensitive applications and industries such as Internet, communications, legal, health care and financial services. The Toolkit provides 40 percent improvement in engine initialization (compared with V2.1), resulting in remarkably better application response times. With a new "packet encryption" technique, the RPK Toolkit is well suited for broadcast and multi-cast applications, especially on the Internet. "Because the RPK Toolkit is developed outside of the U.S., it is not subject to U.S. export laws which gives a tremendous advantage to international customers, allowing them to produce secure, fast and flexible systems with strong encryption," said Jack Oswald, president and CEO of RPK Security. The RPK Encryptonite Engine uniquely combines all the benefits of other public key systems (authentication, digital signatures and digital certificates) with the speed of a secret key system into one algorithm. With the Encryptonite Engine's superior performance, applications requiring streaming data, sound, video or numerous transactions, such as credit card payments, receive instantaneous responses and secure communication links. The RPK Toolkit includes: ANSI standard C/C++ libraries for Win95/98/NT, HP/UX, Sun Solaris (C only) and Linux, Delphi 3.0/4.0 VCL component for Win95/NT, DLL and ActiveX. It also has been compiled and tested with Visual C++, Borland C++ Builder and gnu/g++. Pricing and Availability: The RPK Encryptonite Software Toolkit is available for licensing worldwide. Pricing starts at $695 per developer (development only). Deployment license fees are based upon custom configurations. For sales information, call (415) 563-1800 or e-mail sales(a)rpkusa.com ABOUT RPK SECURITY Founded in 1995, RPK Security, Inc. is a technology leader in fast public key encryption. RPK's cryptographic research and product development is based in New Zealand, Switzerland and the U.K, with worldwide sales and marketing in San Francisco, CA. Contact RPK at www.rpkusa.com or (212) 488-9891 or www.rpkusa.com

1 0

Papers and tutorials on ECC.
by rsriram＠krdl.org.sg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI: There are some good tutorials and papers on ECC at http://www.certicom.com/ecc

1 0

Re: Child-Molesting Forger's Chilling Confession!!!1!
by Pramote J. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Encrypted_Message=On 4 May 1998 02:57:07 GMT, in article <6ijaq3$bb1(a)news1.panix.com>, <The(a)NSA.sucks> Information Security (= Guy Polis <guy(a)panix.com>) wrote: # Guy Polis (guy(a)panix.com, eviljay(a)bway.net) is a pedophile child # molester who was fired from his consulting position at Salomon Brothers # after he was caught masturbating in his cubicle at the child pornography # JPEGs that he downloaded from the Internet. The poster's been awful quiet lately - did the feds arrest him? Browser=Netscape:Mozilla/3.04Gold (Win95; I) Remedy=Tell the world

1 0

Re: Child-Molesting Forger's Chilling Confession!!!1!
by Pramote J. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Encrypted_Message=On 4 May 1998 02:57:07 GMT, in article <6ijaq3$bb1(a)news1.panix.com>, <The(a)NSA.sucks> Information Security (= Guy Polis <guy(a)panix.com>) wrote: # Guy Polis (guy(a)panix.com, eviljay(a)bway.net) is a pedophile child # molester who was fired from his consulting position at Salomon Brothers # after he was caught masturbating in his cubicle at the child pornography # JPEGs that he downloaded from the Internet. The poster's been awful quiet lately - did the feds arrest him? Browser=Netscape:Mozilla/3.04Gold (Win95; I) Remedy=Tell the world

1 0

Re: Child-Molesting Forger's Chilling Confession!!!1!
by Pramote J. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Encrypted_Message=On 4 May 1998 02:57:07 GMT, in article <6ijaq3$bb1(a)news1.panix.com>, <The(a)NSA.sucks> Information Security (= Guy Polis <guy(a)panix.com>) wrote: # Guy Polis (guy(a)panix.com, eviljay(a)bway.net) is a pedophile child # molester who was fired from his consulting position at Salomon Brothers # after he was caught masturbating in his cubicle at the child pornography # JPEGs that he downloaded from the Internet. The poster's been awful quiet lately - did the feds arrest him? Browser=Netscape:Mozilla/3.04Gold (Win95; I) Remedy=Tell the world

1 0

Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, and I am amazed by the level of utopist muck that is being spewed here by you. Without some government the Bad Guys will be the only ones with anything. It is only with the threat of losing their power that leaders do good. If they had no power which could be lost or taken they will always do what's best for them in the short term, which is usually to shit on the peons. Dictators (like Pinochet and Gates) do their dirty deeds because they feel no need to placate the masses. This anarcho-capitalist spew is so much crap that the bullshit indicators are blaring at top volume. If the people can't control a constitutional government, known for having peacefully free elections for over two hundred years, then how the hell do think you can convince somebody that the people are going to be able to control warlords and monopolies. It's called, "You don't like it? Bang, Bang, you're dead!" Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then come back and tell us.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11:18:44 +0100 > From: "Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2(a)apf2.com> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the > Foregone(fwd) > Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at > least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting > anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure > it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then > come back and tell us. And I've something to add. Any person who mentions Iceland as a workable anarchy is in deep trouble. I done the research and it doesn't fly as a workable example *unless* you're willing to legalize murder which is *EXACTLY* what the Icelanders did. It didn't work for them long-term and it won't work for us either. So if you want to use it you've got to explain why legalizing murder is a social positive. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CALEA likely will cover Internet telephony
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 08:30:19 -0500 >To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: Wiretapping law likely will cover Internet telephony > >[Any blame should not properly go to the FCC but Congress, which voted for Digital Telephony/CALEA in the first place. --Declan] > >=== > >http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16146.html > > Wiretapping Internet Phone Lines > by Declan McCullagh > > 4:00 a.m. 10.Nov.98.PST > A federal wiretapping law designed to let > police snoop on telephone calls could > have profound implications for companies > that offer Internet phone service. > > [...] > > >

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:32:10 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd) > Jim Choate wrote: > > > > So what are saying...that because any government ever happened to abuse its > > citizens in a particular way is justification to do away with all > > government? > > No, it's because *all* governments abuse their citizens. People abuse people, it's why anarcho-anything won't work. Quit confusing human nature with political systems. Democracy recognizes that individuals are abused, and that they are wont to accept that abuse until it becomes truly excessive (which our country isn't by a long shot). It's the reason the individual is given a vote and civil liberties. If you seriously think you're going to pass a set of laws ( or by extension throw the ones we have out) and the world will be a better place then you are one confused puppy. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 01:23:34 -0500 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd) > > I'm still waiting for one of you guys to explain in detail how it works on a > > day to day basis... > > It works much the same as it does today, except that there isn't a > parasitic state wasting resources on feeding a useless band of > politicians, or pointing guns at people who don't obey its whims. Cop-out. "It's the same but different" is spin-doctor bullshit. Explain how the system works. Explain how the various systems operate, how the costs are calculated, and how they're paid. I want to see the same level of *specificity* that I and others have agreed to provide you in our examples. We want an answer not some glib off the shoulder quip. [I'm deleting the rest of this since it doesn't answer any questions that have been posed to the anarcho-whatever side] ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:08:11 -0500 > From: Soren <sorens(a)workmail.com> > Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > <P>This also provides an outlet for the social do-gooders to create their > utopias by vastly inflating those taxes associated with less favored consumables Hm, interesting choice of terms for comparison. So you're admitting that anarcho-whatever isn't a social do-gooder, the intent is not to make the system better or more equitable. Rather you're admitting, apparently tacitly, that the goal of the anarcho-whatever is personal rather than social improvement. There is also a further tacit admission with this system won't address the social ills that plague us currently. I must admit I'm impressed. In a couple of days I've run across two seperate anarcho-whatever supporters who admit their proposal won't address the social ills but rather leaves them up to chance. That's more than in the last 20 years. > be heavily taxed, and what not.  Perhaps this is why there were multiple > states in the US rather than a single homogenous state, prior to Honest > (I am not a crook) Abe? Duh, I believe the boy has it. > <P>Last time I looked at it, there were 108 separate taxes included in > the retail cost of an egg and 112 for a loaf of bread, so yes, I would I'd like a reference to this particular list if possible. > <P>One question for the socialists out there;  when is the promised > egalitarian utopia  going to kick in?  It doesn't seem to be > getting any closer.</HTML> I'd ask the same question of the anarcho-whatever but you took care of it so adroitely above... ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:33:53 -0500 > From: Soren <sorens(a)workmail.com> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the > Foregone(fwd) > Is there some specific reason they need to be large scale or long lasting?  Yes. There are the issues of human psychology which requires stable social institutions, there is the question of economic fragility if the market is too fragile or volatile. There is the question of long-term ownership of property and services. It's hard to run a business if you don't know what the rules will most likely be in a year or 10. There are lots of reasons that social and political institutions should be long-lived. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Blanc" <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:41:55 -0800 > > : Jesus, it's a miracle. Blanc and I actualy agree....I think > : I'm gonna faint. > ................................................... > > > Eureka, success. > Keep it in mind. Everything I ever said that you disagreed with relates to > that post. Well I wouldn't jump too high Blanc, it's exactly what I've been saying for most of my life. It's what I've included in dozens of posts over the last few weeks regarding the *respect* of civil liberties and the individual. Perhaps you were just to busy to actualy read them.... ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: oldbat <bucsplace(a)cchat.com> Subject: IP: Clinton Wants Loophole In U.S. Free Speech Closed Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:48:25 -0500 To: IP <ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19981107/ts/guns_… > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton directed his government Saturday to > find a way to close a legal loophole that allows speakers/journalists to > express their ideas at public places with no questions asked. > In his weekly radio address, Clinton said a ``dangerous trend'' is emerging > at seminars and radio talk shows because the First Amendment permits people > to express their ideas without background checks. > ``Some of these talk shows have become a heaven for criminals and hate > speech mongers looking to sway people on a no-questions-asked basis,'' > Clinton said. > He directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno > to report back to him in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole in the > Bill of Rights and to prohibit any free speech without a background check. > ``I believe this should be the law of the land: No background check, no free > speech, no exceptions,'' Clinton said. > In a fact sheet, the White House said that every week about 35 million > people regularly listen to an estimated 50 conservative radio personalities > such as Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. > On Nov. 30, 1999 the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System > is set to take effect to allow quicker checks and approve speech licenses > sales within minutes. > In addition, on Nov. 30, 1999 the law will be strengthened in two ways: > purchases of all speech licenses, not just political, will be subject to > Reno background checks as will Kinko's printing services, which are four > times as likely to involve a prohibited printed opinions. > Overall, the White House said, it is estimated that the number of background > checks conducted nationally will increase from 0 million to between 10 and > 12 million. > Unregulated speech are ``an open invitation to criminals and right wing > crazies,'' said Janet Reno, who chairs SpeechControl Inc. The Clinton law > was named after the President, who was wounded in verbal attacks first > launched by radio personality Rush Limbaugh in 1992. > California and Maryland regulate ``hate speech'', said Reno. Florida voters > passed a constitutional amendment Tuesday giving counties the power to > require a waiting period and a background check for speech at public places. **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

5 7

Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force
by Reeza! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 PM 11/9/98 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > >Vladimir writes: >> what we really need is a government which can personalize its >> services, and people pay for what they use. > >yes, agree. In other words we need freedom for business to compete in >provision of all services currently monopolised by government. I think a distinction needs to be made between what they (the Sheeple{tm}) NEED and what they "Request for Convenience". Wrongfull lawsuits and welfare careerists in mind, I think this is an important distinction. --snip-- >If you can opt out of literally any goverment service, I suspect >government revenues would nearly disappear. Everything they "supply" >can be supplied more cheaply by business. So what government remained >would have to compete on a fair basis with private industry. Not so fast, Kimosabe- what business would rule against itself a la the Supreme Court against Congress, when a business decision was spiritually and/or lawfully in violation of the constitution and legitimately passed laws enacted since its inception??? >> the big quandary is people who can't pay for what they use >> like social security. ultimately the question is how much >> money the state has the authority to collect for this kind of >> thing, and the political answer has varied every year, but it >> has gone up every year in the 20th century generally. > >I think the state should have no authority to collect anything. >Charity at the point of a gun is not charity. The state is an >extremely inefficient distributor of charitable funds anyway. This goes back to the "what they NEED vs. what they request for convenience (theirs)" argument. >> the big problem imho is fraud/waste/corruption in govt though. I definitely a problem. Should AP politics apply??? What would be the method of redress for infractions that were so heinous that the perpetrator was deemed untrustworthy and removal from office the only recourse? Who would "remove" the heinous individual for incarceration in an appropriate facility??? Who would decide that such action was warranted??? >> think if a lot of it were eliminated we would be flabbergasted at >> how little a personal contribution it takes to take care of people >> who need it. bureaucracies are the most expensive thing on the >> planet. here's hoping that cyberspace will cut through the >> *ultimate* middleman: govt. > >Amen to that. > >Adam Perhaps we should view the internet as a wedge, not as the fulcrum, lever and force. I think it would be intuitive, instructive, and demonstrative to operate on that premise rather than the "here is the internet, my trump card, I rest my case" style of argument. Reeza! If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention of doing you good, you should run for your life. -stolen from a cypherpunk sig

1 0

"Pulpit Confessions: Exposing The Black Church"
by Exodus.Books 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CALL TODAY TO ORDER THIS BOOK - (800) 830-2047 "What nobody had the nerve to tell you until now." "Real evidence of what you only suspected." "The Black Church as you've never known it before." Pulpit Confessions: Exposing The Black Church by N. Moore $16.00 ISBN: 0-9658299-2-8 _____________________________ Pulpit Confessions: Exposing The Black Church is an honest, behind the scenes look at the African-American church. The author spent a decade as a preacher and pastor in the black church and is actually betraying an unofficial code of silence by writing this book. The author began ministry in his teens and was pastoring by his early twenties. He speaks frankly about his and other ministers' odysseys from sincere, well intentioned prodigies to cynical, sinful, showman. He soon discovered that things in the church were not as they seemed. In this ground-breaking book, he describes a secular and often profane ministerial community that is often shrouded in pseudo holiness. He exposes the thoughts and motivations of both ministers and congregations and their degenerate power struggles which often turn violent. He pulls no punches when he untangles the myths, unravels the mystique and reveals the secrets of the Black Church. _____________________________ Chapter Titles "The Call" "The Process" "Mentors" "Let's Talk About Preaching" "Landing A Church" "Show Me The Money" "Learning To Play Hard Ball" "Dr. Jekyll and Rev. Hyde" "Where Do We Go From Here?" _____________________________ ORDERING INFORMATION Pulpit Confessions: Exposing The Black Church by N. Moore $16.00 ISBN: 0-9658299-2-8 $3.00 Shipping and Handling _____________________________ Order By Phone 800-830-2047 --------------------------- Exodus Books 5411 E. State Street #348 Rockford, IL 61108

1 0

Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:24:23 +0000 > From: "Frank O'Dwyer" <fod(a)brd.ie> > Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > Jim Choate wrote: > > > You can make money from information provision by charging extra for > > > up-to-date news, or by charging so little that the cost from the > > > original provider is so low that it's not worth anyones time to > > > redistribute it, > > > > That's true now, why don't we see these effects... > > We do. News inherently has a 'sell-by' date. The most obvious example is > stock quotes where delayed quotes are provided for free whereas > real-time quotes are heavily charged for. The recipients of such > information care very much about latency, since it's possible to trade > on any differences that may exist. There's even some research on attacks > that simply delay packets in such networks. Ah, true but I was addressing the last sentence about the cost being so low nobody will charge for it.....sounds like the nuclear industry marketing speal of the 50's.... Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have edited the first part out since it wasn't relevant. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Mr. or Ms. support(a)xroads.com, I'd like to advise you of abuse of your system and the resultant spam that I am receiving as a result. I've checked my subscription list and it contains NO xroads.com subscribers at all. You are apparently having legitimite, non-commercial traffic forwarded to your site in order to cause excessive work and potential denial of services (to your customers). Please police your own house before you go around threatening $500 leins and prosecution on others. Have a nice day. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Forwarded message: > From root(a)dogbert.xroads.com Tue Nov 10 07:52:20 1998 > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 06:52:46 -0700 (MST) > Message-Id: <199811101352.GAA09138(a)dogbert.xroads.com> > To: owner-cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com > Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > References: <199811101343.HAA17689(a)einstein.ssz.com> > In-Reply-To: <199811101343.HAA17689(a)einstein.ssz.com> > From: abuse(a)xroads.com > X-Loop: noloop(a)noloop.nlp > > >Forwarded message: > > >> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:24:23 +0000 > >> From: "Frank O'Dwyer" <fod(a)brd.ie> > >> Subject: Re: fuck copyright (Re: Advertising Creepiness) (fwd) > > >> Jim Choate wrote: > >> > > You can make money from information provision by charging extra for > >> > > up-to-date news, or by charging so little that the cost from the > >> > > original provider is so low that it's not worth anyones time to > >> > > redistribute it, > >> > > >> > That's true now, why don't we see these effects... > >> > >> We do. News inherently has a 'sell-by' date. The most obvious example is > >> stock quotes where delayed quotes are provided for free whereas > >> real-time quotes are heavily charged for. The recipients of such > >> information care very much about latency, since it's possible to trade > >> on any differences that may exist. There's even some research on attacks > >> that simply delay packets in such networks. > > >Ah, true but I was addressing the last sentence about the cost being so low > >nobody will charge for it.....sounds like the nuclear industry marketing > >speal of the 50's.... > > >Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have edited the first part out > >since it wasn't relevant. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want > > the right answers. > > > Scully (X-Files) > > > The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate > > Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com > > www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > > -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is apparently at least the second unsolicited commercial email from your > address. If you feel you have received this email in error, please contact > support(a)xroads.com > > Senders of unsolicited commercial email will be charged $500 for each instance > of unsolicited commerical email on Crossroads network systems, and are > subject to prosecution under the following Federal statute, and other > applicable federal and local laws. > > > * UNITED STATES CODE > > + TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS > > o CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION > > # SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > § 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment > * (a) Definitions > > As used in this section - > + (1) The term ''automatic telephone dialing system'' means > equipment which has the capacity - > o (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, > using a random or sequential number generator; and > o (B) to dial such numbers. > + (2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment > which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or > both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit > that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to > transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal > received over a regular telephone line onto paper. > + (3) The term ''telephone solicitation'' means the initiation > of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging > the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, > or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such > term does not include a call or message (A) to any person > with that person's prior express invitation or permission, > (B) to any person with whom the caller has an established > business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit > organization. > + (4) The term ''unsolicited advertisement'' means any material > advertising the commercial availability or quality of any > property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any > person without that person's prior express invitation or > permission. > * (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment > + (1) Prohibitions > > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States > - > o (A) to make any call (other than a call made for > emergency purposes or made with the prior express > consent of the called party) using any automatic > telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded > voice - > # (i) to any emergency telephone line (including any > ''911'' line and any emergency line of a hospital, > medical physician or service office, health care > facility, poison control center, or fire protection > or law enforcement agency); > # (ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or > patient room of a hospital, health care facility, > elderly home, or similar establishment; or > # (iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging > service, cellular telephone service, specialized > mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier > service, or any service for which the called party > is charged for the call; > o (B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential > telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice > to deliver a message without the prior express consent > of the called party, unless the call is initiated for > emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by > the Commission under paragraph (2)(B); > o (C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or > other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a > telephone facsimile machine; or > o (D) to use an automatic telephone dialing system in such > a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line > business are engaged simultaneously. > + (2) Regulations; exemptions and other provisions > > The Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the > requirements of this subsection. In implementing the > requirements of this subsection, the Commission - > o (A) shall consider prescribing regulations to allow > businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an > artificial or prerecorded voice to which they have not > given their prior express consent; > o (B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements > of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, subject to such > conditions as the Commission may prescribe - > # (i) calls that are not made for a commercial > purpose; and > # (ii) such classes or categories of calls made for > commercial purposes as the Commission determines - > @ (I) will not adversely affect the privacy > rights that this section is intended to > protect; and > @ (II) do not include the transmission of any > unsolicited advertisement; and > o (C) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements > of paragraphs (FOOTNOTE 1) (1)(A)(iii) of this > subsection calls to a telephone number assigned to a > cellular telephone service that are not charged to the > called party, subject to such conditions as the > Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interest of > the privacy rights this section is intended to protect. > (FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. Probably should be > ''paragraph''. > + (3) Private right of action > > A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or > rules of court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of > that State - > o (A) an action based on a violation of this subsection or > the regulations prescribed under this subsection to > enjoin such violation, > o (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from > such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each > such violation, whichever is greater, or > o (C) both such actions. If the court finds that the > defendant willfully or knowingly violated this > subsection or the regulations prescribed under this > subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more > than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) > of this paragraph. > * (c) Protection of subscriber privacy rights > + (1) Rulemaking proceeding required > > Within 120 days after December 20, 1991, the Commission shall > initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning the need to > protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to > avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. > The proceeding shall - > o (A) compare and evaluate alternative methods and > procedures (including the use of electronic databases, > telephone network technologies, special directory > markings, industry-based or company-specific ''do not > call'' systems, and any other alternatives, individually > or in combination) for their effectiveness in protecting > such privacy rights, and in terms of their cost and > other advantages and disadvantages; > o (B) evaluate the categories of public and private > entities that would have the capacity to establish and > administer such methods and procedures; > o (C) consider whether different methods and procedures > may apply for local telephone solicitations, such as > local telephone solicitations of small businesses or > holders of second class mail permits; > o (D) consider whether there is a need for additional > Commission authority to further restrict telephone > solicitations, including those calls exempted under > subsection (a)(3) of this section, and, if such a > finding is made and supported by the record, propose > specific restrictions to the Congress; and > o (E) develop proposed regulations to implement the > methods and procedures that the Commission determines > are most effective and efficient to accomplish the > purposes of this section. > + (2) Regulations > > Not later than 9 months after December 20, 1991, the > Commission shall conclude the rulemaking proceeding initiated > under paragraph (1) and shall prescribe regulations to > implement methods and procedures for protecting the privacy > rights described in such paragraph in an efficient, > effective, and economic manner and without the imposition of > any additional charge to telephone subscribers. > + (3) Use of database permitted > > The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the > establishment and operation of a single national database to > compile a list of telephone numbers of residential > subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, > and to make that compiled list and parts thereof available > for purchase. If the Commission determines to require such a > database, such regulations shall - > o (A) specify a method by which the Commission will select > an entity to administer such database; > o (B) require each common carrier providing telephone > exchange service, in accordance with regulations > prescribed by the Commission, to inform subscribers for > telephone exchange service of the opportunity to provide > notification, in accordance with regulations established > under this paragraph, that such subscriber objects to > receiving telephone solicitations; > o (C) specify the methods by which each telephone > subscriber shall be informed, by the common carrier that > provides local exchange service to that subscriber, of > (i) the subscriber's right to give or revoke a > notification of an objection under subparagraph (A), and > (ii) the methods by which such right may be exercised by > the subscriber; > o (D) specify the methods by which such objections shall > be collected and added to the database; > o (E) prohibit any residential subscriber from being > charged for giving or revoking such notification or for > being included in a database compiled under this > section; > o (F) prohibit any person from making or transmitting a > telephone solicitation to the telephone number of any > subscriber included in such database; > o (G) specify (i) the methods by which any person desiring > to make or transmit telephone solicitations will obtain > access to the database, by area code or local exchange > prefix, as required to avoid calling the telephone > numbers of subscribers included in such database; and > (ii) the costs to be recovered from such persons; > o (H) specify the methods for recovering, from persons > accessing such database, the costs involved in > identifying, collecting, updating, disseminating, and > selling, and other activities relating to, the > operations of the database that are incurred by the > entities carrying out those activities; > o (I) specify the frequency with which such database will > be updated and specify the method by which such updating > will take effect for purposes of compliance with the > regulations prescribed under this subsection; > o (J) be designed to enable States to use the database > mechanism selected by the Commission for purposes of > administering or enforcing State law; > o (K) prohibit the use of such database for any purpose > other than compliance with the requirements of this > section and any such State law and specify methods for > protection of the privacy rights of persons whose > numbers are included in such database; and > o (L) require each common carrier providing services to > any person for the purpose of making telephone > solicitations to notify such person of the requirements > of this section and the regulations thereunder. > + (4) Considerations required for use of database method > > If the Commission determines to require the database > mechanism described in paragraph (3), the Commission shall - > o (A) in developing procedures for gaining access to the > database, consider the different needs of telemarketers > conducting business on a national, regional, State, or > local level; > o (B) develop a fee schedule or price structure for > recouping the cost of such database that recognizes such > differences and - > # (i) reflect the relative costs of providing a > national, regional, State, or local list of phone > numbers of subscribers who object to receiving > telephone solicitations; > # (ii) reflect the relative costs of providing such > lists on paper or electronic media; and > # (iii) not place an unreasonable financial burden on > small businesses; and > o (C) consider (i) whether the needs of telemarketers > operating on a local basis could be met through special > markings of area white pages directories, and (ii) if > such directories are needed as an adjunct to database > lists prepared by area code and local exchange prefix. > + (5) Private right of action > > A person who has received more than one telephone call within > any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in > violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection > may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of > a State bring in an appropriate court of that State - > o (A) an action based on a violation of the regulations > prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such > violation, > o (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from > such a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages > for each such violation, whichever is greater, or > o (C) both such actions. It shall be an affirmative > defense in any action brought under this paragraph that > the defendant has established and implemented, with due > care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively > prevent telephone solicitations in violation of the > regulations prescribed under this subsection. If the > court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly > violated the regulations prescribed under this > subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more > than 3 times the amount available under subparagraph (B) > of this paragraph. > + (6) Relation to subsection (b) > > The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to > permit a communication prohibited by subsection (b) of this > section. > * (d) Technical and procedural standards > + (1) Prohibition > > It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States > - > o (A) to initiate any communication using a telephone > facsimile machine, or to make any telephone call using > any automatic telephone dialing system, that does not > comply with the technical and procedural standards > prescribed under this subsection, or to use any > telephone facsimile machine or automatic telephone > dialing system in a manner that does not comply with > such standards; or > o (B) to use a computer or other electronic device to send > any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless > such person clearly marks, in a margin at the top or > bottom of each transmitted page of the message or on the > first page of the transmission, the date and time it is > sent and an identification of the business, other > entity, or individual sending the message and the > telephone number of the sending machine or of such > business, other entity, or individual. > + (2) Telephone facsimile machines > > The Commission shall revise the regulations setting technical > and procedural standards for telephone facsimile machines to > require that any such machine which is manufactured after one > year after December 20, 1991, clearly marks, in a margin at > the top or bottom of each transmitted page or on the first > page of each transmission, the date and time sent, an > identification of the business, other entity, or individual > sending the message, and the telephone number of the sending > machine or of such business, other entity, or individual. > + (3) Artificial or prerecorded voice systems > > The Commission shall prescribe technical and procedural > standards for systems that are used to transmit any > artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone. Such > standards shall require that - > o (A) all artificial or prerecorded telephone messages (i) > shall, at the beginning of the message, state clearly > the identity of the business, individual, or other > entity initiating the call, and (ii) shall, during or > after the message, state clearly the telephone number or > address of such business, other entity, or individual; > and > o (B) any such system will automatically release the > called party's line within 5 seconds of the time > notification is transmitted to the system that the > called party has hung up, to allow the called party's > line to be used to make or receive other calls. > * (e) Effect on State law > + (1) State law not preempted > > Except for the standards prescribed under subsection (d) of > this section and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, > nothing in this section or in the regulations prescribed > under this section shall preempt any State law that imposes > more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on, > or which prohibits - > o (A) the use of telephone facsimile machines or other > electronic devices to send unsolicited advertisements; > o (B) the use of automatic telephone dialing systems; > o (C) the use of artificial or prerecorded voice messages; > or > o (D) the making of telephone solicitations. > + (2) State use of databases > > If, pursuant to subsection (c)(3) of this section, the > Commission requires the establishment of a single national > database of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to > receiving telephone solicitations, a State or local authority > may not, in its regulation of telephone solicitations, > require the use of any database, list, or listing system that > does not include the part of such single national datebase > (FOOTNOTE 2) that relates to such State. > > (FOOTNOTE 2) So in original. Probably should be ''database''. > * (f) Actions by States > + (1) Authority of States > > Whenever the attorney general of a State, or an official or > agency designated by a State, has reason to believe that any > person has engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of > telephone calls or other transmissions to residents of that > State in violation of this section or the regulations > prescribed under this section, the State may bring a civil > action on behalf of its residents to enjoin such calls, an > action to recover for actual monetary loss or receive $500 in > damages for each violation, or both such actions. If the > court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated > such regulations, the court may, in its discretion, increase > the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 > times the amount available under the preceding sentence. > + (2) Exclusive jurisdiction of Federal courts > > The district courts of the United States, the United States > courts of any territory, and the District Court of the United > States for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive > jurisdiction over all civil actions brought under this > subsection. Upon proper application, such courts shall also > have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, or orders > affording like relief, commanding the defendant to comply > with the provisions of this section or regulations prescribed > under this section, including the requirement that the > defendant take such action as is necessary to remove the > danger of such violation. Upon a proper showing, a permanent > or temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted > without bond. > + (3) Rights of Commission > > The State shall serve prior written notice of any such civil > action upon the Commission and provide the Commission with a > copy of its complaint, except in any case where such prior > notice is not feasible, in which case the State shall serve > such notice immediately upon instituting such action. The > Commission shall have the right (A) to intervene in the > action, (B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters > arising therein, and (C) to file petitions for appeal. > + (4) Venue; service of process > > Any civil action brought under this subsection in a district > court of the United States may be brought in the district > wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or > transacts business or wherein the violation occurred or is > occurring, and process in such cases may be served in any > district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or where the > defendant may be found. > + (5) Investigatory powers > > For purposes of bringing any civil action under this > subsection, nothing in this section shall prevent the > attorney general of a State, or an official or agency > designated by a State, from exercising the powers conferred > on the attorney general or such official by the laws of such > State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or > affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the > production of documentary and other evidence. > + (6) Effect on State court proceedings > > Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to > prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding in > State court on the basis of an alleged violation of any > general civil or criminal statute of such State. > + (7) Limitation > > Whenever the Commission has instituted a civil action for > violation of regulations prescribed under this section, no > State may, during the pendency of such action instituted by > the Commission, subsequently institute a civil action against > any defendant named in the Commission's complaint for any > violation as alleged in the Commission's complaint. > + (8) ''Attorney general'' defined > > As used in this subsection, the term ''attorney general'' > means the chief legal officer of a State. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > >

1 0

Usual Computer Ban
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Pentagon Kids Kicked Off Grid >Reuters > >11:47 a.m. 6.Nov.98.PST Two California teenagers who mounted what the Pentagon >called one the most systematic attacks ever made against a US military computer >network were sentenced by a federal judge Thursday. > >US District Judge Maxine Chesney doled out the usual punishment for those convicted >of computer crimes: No more computers. The boys, aged 16 and 17, are barred from >using modems or computers without supervision during their three-year probation. > >The judge forbade the hackers from possessing or using a computer modem, acting as >computer consultants, or having any contact with computers out of sight of "a school >teacher, librarian, employer, or other person approved by the probation officer." Usual laugh. Not technically feasible to mount this sort of Denial of Service attack unless you actually imprison them. Computers and connections are a bit too ubiquitous. DCF

1 0

American Banker article on DigiCash bankruptcy
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rah(a)pop.sneaker.net Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:36:45 -0500 To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com> From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: American Banker article on DigiCash bankruptcy Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ --- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 12:23:36 +0100 (MET) From: Somebody To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: American Banker article on DigiCash bankruptcy From: Somebody Else To: Somebody Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 05:41:36 -0500 <Somebody>, This is the American Banker article on the subject: Digital Frontiers Tuesday, November 10, 1998 Electronic Commerce: Bankrupt Digicash to Seek Financing, New Allies By Jeffrey Kutler & Carol Power Digicash Inc., which invented a virtual cash concept for the Internet, now must reinvent itself. With the announcement last week that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Digicash has embarked on yet another phase of a corporate saga that has won it acclaim and admiration in both the banking and Internet communities -- but precious little business. Shielded for the moment from creditor pressures, the Palo Alto, Calif., company will attempt to find the financing and forge the strategic relationships it needs to widen the appeal of its eCash product, said interim chief executive officer Scott Loftesness. The company also has a significant "intellectual property portfolio," he said, that could prove useful in other applications requiring privacy and anonymity, such as electronic voting. Mr. Loftesness indicated that Digicash has never exploited the full potential of its patents to generate licensing income, which now might help turn the operation around. Bankruptcy is but the latest of many turns for an eight-year-old venture created by David Chaum, a former University of California professor and expert on data encryption who was among the first to see a need for a cash-like payment mechanism on open networks. The design of eCash and its anonymity principles attracted widespread attention in 1994 and 1995 as banks and other corporations began exploring the Internet's commercial potential. Through a series of consulting projects and demonstrations, Digicash came close to assembling a network of banks to issue and manage the virtual currency. But the licensee group -- including Deutsche Bank, Den Norske Bank, Bank Austria, Advance Bank of Australia, and Mark Twain Bank of St. Louis -- never got beyond pilot stages. Things were looking up in 1997 when Digicash attracted venture capital interest from, among others, David Marquardt of August Capital, who was an early backer of Microsoft Corp. Digicash also reconstituted its board with Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Nicholas Negroponte as chairman, and hired "professional management" led by CEO Michael Nash, a former American Express Co. and Visa International executive. Mr. Chaum remained as chief technology officer. The headquarters was moved from Mr. Chaum's base in Amsterdam to Silicon Valley. Many in the banking technology world took positive note of the fact that in June 1998, former Wells Fargo & Co. president William Zuendt joined Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Marquardt, Mr. Chaum, Toon den Heijer of Gilde Investment Funds, and others on the board. This past August, Mr. Nash was succeeded by Mr. Loftesness, who also has Visa in his background. The part of the operation that remained in Amsterdam was closed, and the staff was cut significantly from its peak of about 50. Mr. Loftesness said last week that he intends to see the Chapter 11 process through. He described eCash as "important and inevitable" for the maturity of electronic commerce. Throughout its struggles to prove it was not too far ahead of its time, Digicash has been followed closely by analysts and treated seriously by competitors. Many were impressed by the technology's cash-like anonymity and an accountability system that prevents any of the virtual coins from being spent twice, yet without compromising personal privacy. "There is a great lesson in it," said Richard Crone, vice president of Cybercash Inc. and general manager of PayNow, its version of an electronic check. "You must match the payment type to the application that is being sold." He called Digicash "a payment type in search of an application, rather than an application in search of a payment." So far in Internet consumer payments, particularly in the United States, credit cards have won the day. "We've done such a good job deploying credit cards and reassuring consumers that the security is present," Mr. Crone said, that there is no compelling need for eCash. (Cybercash's cybercoin product ran up against the same reality, but the Reston, Va., company is active in several payment modes, including credit cards.) Cybercash's inroads in markets outside the United States with lower credit card penetration -- Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom -- were due to financial institution partners, Mr. Crone said. "Digicash did not have the support we did." David Stewart, vice president of Global Concepts Inc., Norcross, Ga., criticized Digicash for not bridging the physical and virtual worlds. He said as currently configured, eCash compares unfavorably with MasterCard International's Mondex venture, the Belgium-based Proton system, or Avant of Finland, which are smart cards with an Internet transmission component. Because eCash "needed on-line validation of tokens spent, clearing of the transactions required authorization like a credit card," Mr. Stewart said. Another strike against eCash, he said, was the lack of major financial institution support in the United States, where there are constituencies for Mondex, Visa International's Visa Cash, and Proton, which is part-owned by Visa and American Express Co. "Digicash needs to come up with an off-line electronic cash scheme and have the backing of a serious player in the payments world," Mr. Stewart said. The one U.S. participant, Mark Twain Bank, was acquired by Mercantile Bancorp. of St. Louis 20 months ago. Larry Kirschner, Mercantile Bank senior vice president of foreign exchange, said eCash "was not profitable from the moment we inherited it. "We tried to figure out how to make it profitable and for it to appeal to our corporate and retail customers, to very little success," he said. The bank ended its three-year experiment in September. It had 5,000 eCash customers, about 20% of them in Mercantile's eight-state Midwest territory and the rest on the two coasts. They held "significantly less" than $100,000 in eCash accounts, Mr. Kirschner said. "We didn't see a strategic fit for eCash," he said. "The revenue stream was not there, the demand was not there, and quite frankly, it wasn't going to be there." The banker said eCash suffered because the public "did not have any insecurity and did use their credit cards on the Internet." But Mr. Loftesness said Digicash's board and backers have not lost faith that "eCash is inevitable. The length of time and the amount of financing to get there remain the key open questions." --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0