December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- phelix(a)vallnet.com wrote: >First, PGPsdk has been released: > > http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ > >The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no >freeware or shareware applications using it. 1. It's not bad news because it didn't cost us anything for somebody else to write it. We are doing just as well as last week. 2. If the licensing fees are really high, this should be a good opportunity for competing software. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFwiF5aWtjSmRH/5AQFBQAf/VoTRpAVMo7r2ebpwYHJL4AUxEL9Muwwr za+Bm0hOMU630ifmqmGXg12AbUAMDOnD/g0Io/bwIL36t4lhTfKTV6Sbzc/I0G6s A8vWR56kX6wo2XjDw/lI5zKbFrrxcIAPtMd0e8Cq2vsjSGBMbzI6GXhO+7TMDQV/ kdgd7b1x5/kPBw88kcmNI72MSrRaPsMavptbGpqVs469dy/6gfRDhIO2nedkDgQI 4eHDjmYc6hKFDUelWVN5PS8u5O/LfCkYDYfkb6BG3VNAJeSIkW+KfQFac5P2i00E cGyf/WZuvWtCmpHgLk5FKPUQS4zQXpeaJJG7LYJY6Cq2I9H+OYusTQ== =gc92 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[FWD] Further Attacks on "cajones.com" Vindicate Jeff Burchell and the Huge Cajones Remailer
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

dr(a)ripco.com (David Richards) wrote: > It appears that the domain 'cajones.com' is being abandoned due to the ^^^^^^^^^^^ > massive forgery by spammers? No nameservers respond... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Enclosed is a spam recently received, through the open relay 'rio.bravo.net' > from an IBM.NET dialup. > > Note that the only body text in this spam is a URL that doesn't work because > the spammer truncated the URL, and the complete url points to what appears > to be a legitimate site, so he was probably trying to promote a personal > home page or other sub-site on 'http://www.fcl.metronet.lib.mi.us/' > > > === Spam with headers intact === > > From cajones.com!weijoro79 Fri Oct 31 22:58:42 1997 > Return-Path: <weijoro79(a)cajones.com> > Received: from rio.bravo.net (root(a)207.48.46.12) > by XXXXX.ZZZZZ.com with SMTP; 1 Nov 1997 04:58:38 -0000 > Received: from LOCALNAME (slip166-72-172-87.fl.us.ibm.net [166.72.172.87]) by rio.bravo.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) > with SMTP id WAA24372; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:32:27 -0600 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:32:27 -0600 > From: weijoro79(a)cajones.com > To: weijoro79(a)cajones.com > Comments: Authenticated sender is <weijoro79(a)cajones.com> > Errors-To: nobody(a)nowhere.com > Subject: Create custom targeted e-mail address lists... > Message-Id: <199711012578NAA22995(a)cajones.bravo.net> > > http://www.fcl.metronet.lib.m That's quite interesting. Spam is arriving with forged headers that attempt to implicate "cajones.com". That domain has quite a colorful history. According to InterNIC records, it's operated by Jeff Burchell, who is also the former operator of the defunct Huge Cajones Remailer which he operated as part of that domain. Along came Gary Burnore <gburnore(a)netcom.com>, CEO of DataBasix, who claimed that Jeff's remailer at cajones.com was being used to "forge" his e-mail address to Usenet articles. His only evidence was a few messages which happened to have a "cajones.com" message id in the headers, and they weren't even very convincing forgery attempts at that. Gary Burnore, Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)ix.netcom.com>, and William J. McClatchie (aka "Wotan") <wmcclatc(a)primenet.com> managed to harass Jeff sufficiently that he shut the remailer down. At the time, Burnore refused to concede the possibility that any "forgeries" of articles in his name might also have forged headers designed to implicate "cajones.com" as well. Rather he relied on the fact that Jeff kept no logs which could prove the innocence of himself and his remailer. Now the "cajones.com" domain is dead, and yet it's still showing up in forged headers! It looks like another of Gary Burnore's "shoot first and ask questions later" accusations has been cast into doubt. Unfortunately, it's probably too late to undo the disinformation campaign that he waged against Jeff Burchell and other remailer operators. -- Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind. -- General William Westmoreland

1 0

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by phelix＠vallnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First, PGPsdk has been released: http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no freeware or shareware applications using it. Here's an example of the licensing: License Plan #1 Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per server) Add Certificate Server Integration: $5,000 advance on royalties Support/Upgrades (includes email support by a trained developer support technician) $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments Oh well, back to hacking an interface to PGPtray. -- Phelix

1 0

Re: [SURVEY] pgp5.x / pgp2.x users
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> wrote: >Fill out and email me, and I'll tabulate results, and post here and on >ietf-open-pgp: >==============================8<============================== >mini straw poll on pgp2.x and 5.x usage: > >1. What are you currently using for everyday use: 2.x or 5.x >[ 2 or 5 ] 2.x. 5.x is purposefully incompatable and crippled. >2. What proportion of people you use PGP to communicate with are using 5.x >[ x / y ] None. If they're using 5.x I by definition can't communicate with them. >3. How many of the 5.x users you communicate with are cypherpunks >[ z ] See above. >==============================8<============================== >The question has come up on ietf-open-pgp as to how important it is >for the OpenPGP standard to support backwards compatibility with >pgp2.x. Very. 5.x right now is nothing but annoying. I can understand wanting to use the new algorithms. However if the authors want to do that and literally force people into upgrading then they need to make sure that every platform which had a version of 2.x has a version of 5.x available, and they need to stop breaking *every* script and program which calls PGP. If they release a version of PGP for one platform before they do others and the new version is incompatable with the old for all intents and purposes, they're just feeding OS wars, frustration, and hostility. >The IETF generally likes to steer clear of patented algorithms as >MUSTs in standards. This encourages implementations, etc. >(Personally I'm pretty keen on this point, though I would like more >backwards compatible pgp5.x implementations -- I've already received >emails I can't read without resorting to the pgp5 command line app, >which doesn't work with my mailer integrated system.) That's exactly my situation. I figure, however, that if somebody is going to send out broken email I won't bother kludging around to read it no more than I will go start X11 and fire off a 20 MB browser (Communicator) because some moron doesn't know how to use HTML as it was originally designed. I'm personally appalled at the number of Cypherpunks using a version of PGP which is completely incompatable with previous versions and outrageously annoying to use unless you run Windows since it breaks everything which is integrated. >So the question arises, just how many pgp2.x users are there. PGP Inc >are pointing to the ratio of RSA keys to DSA/EG keys on keyservers as >showing that pgp2.x users are in the minority. However that ratio is >something like 20,000 to 75,000, and I'm sure we've heard statistics >in the past about there being literally millions of pgp 2.x users. >One suspects that either many pgp 2.x users aren't using keyservers (I >know several cypherpunks who have something against key servers and >avoid them for perceived security or privacy reasons), and/or the >pgp2.x user base is exaggerated. You can't compare the user bases this way. First, 5.x integrates easily into several Windows mailers. This encourages people to go get it and install it over 2.x. Second, 5.x integrates keyserver functions. 2.x does not. It's really no work for 5.x users to submit a key to a keyserver, where it takes some effort with 2.x. Third, most people probably have Windows installed already. They heard 5.x was out, and didn't realize that it was so...well, broken. I know I fetched 5.x when it came out and installed it. I almost sent my key to the servers, then stopped to think about how the generated key doesn't work with 2.x. Fourth, if you're using Windows and communicating with other Windows users there is really no reason not to use 5.x. People communicating with classmates at universities and such are likely to go install 5.x because it's easy to use, send their key to the keyservers because they can, and inflate the numbers. Fifth, there are far more Windows users than users of other OSes. Windows users have no reason not to upgrade, while other users have every reason to stick with previous version. I think the major problem with 5.x right now as it stands is the complete lack of support from http://beta.pgp.com, the forced command-line incompatabilities, and the lack of a stable multiplatform version. Add to that the CMR debacle. Now in defense of PGP 5.x I do like the keyserver integration, expiry dates on keys, and some of the other features. I like how it integrates with the mailers. This entire thing makes me think of a web site which checks your browser and OS. If you aren't running what the author likes, it tells you that you suck, you're a moron, you're behind the times, you're using an inferior operating system, and then doesn't show you the data. This is analogous to what PGP Inc. has done. This compatability thing could have very easily been avoided. Face it, PGP Inc. screwed up. I think it's ultimately going to be the job of Cypherpunks outside of the Land of the Freeh to clean up their mess. Has anyone considered hacking up 2.6.xi to handle the new format? It would have to be saner than 5.x is at this point. I would try, but I'm in the Land of the Freeh where you put your backside on the line to write any crypto software at all. Ah, I love America. CompatabilityMonger

2 1

Re:
by wabe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

yeah, so ABC has an absolutly discusting thing last night (was that 20/20) that I watched for almost 20 minutes, in which they actually showed the "raptists" (he met and had sex? with a fifteen year old girl.) Who even meets girls on the internet? Then there was a proto-hacker who shut down the porn chat rooms on Aol. (I commend him, if for nothing else, than for developing software that shuts down parts of AOL. :>) Anyways, Mr. Protohacker actually cried on the camera, because he was raped at age 4, and he couldn't believe we let those pornographers on the internet to spread their web of filth. When TV gets into the war against the Internet, it scares me. I don't want a war between the bible belt and the technocrats... _______________________________________ -wabe

1 0

New remailer in operation at CharmQuark@juno.com
by vcarlos35＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi everyone, I'm running an Type 1 (or Cypherpunks) Remailer at CharmQuark(a)juno.com, using GoddessHera's Juno Remailer ver 4.9, with nym capabilities turned on. Send a message with subject "remailer-help" (No quotes) for more information.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

The distinction between civilians and soldiers, which came about in the 17th and 18th centuries, is close to meaningless in the context of a modern revolution. However, this distinction, and the Clausewitzian claim that war is the continuation of politics by other means, underly the 'law of war.' War as the continuation of politics implies that the State sends soldiers to war against other soldiers to fight for policy rights. War to gain teritory, war over insults or honor, religious war, is seen as a thing of the past. Barbaric. Modern warriors can not understand people who play by other rules. To some extent, this has been good for us civilians. The firebombings of German cities were an exception, not the rule. However, as the anti-colonial movement demonstrated, a people can effectively fight a modern army, and win. They are marked as terrorists, defamed for their capitalist activites such as drug smuggling to finance the struggle, and hanged when caught. A modern revolution, as Mao taught, is based on forcing people to decide if they are with you or against you. There are no neutrals who simply want the status quo to continue, because once the revolutionaries have started to do their job, the state lashes out, passing facist new laws (see Northern Ireland, Peru, the United States). The status quo disappears, and the revolutionaries are committed. It is only by making starkly clear who stands where that enough people to fuel the revolution can have the manpower to sucseed. The alternative to the revolution becomes living under the government that killed your family members. In Algeria, once the first few thousands of martyrs died, every additional person the French killed was a new reason to fight. Surrender, to the Alerians, became inconcievable. Life as French was not worth living. So they fought. When the revolution comes to the United States, it will not be a pretty thing. Our best hope is for a rapid surrender of the current government, which is not likely. By deploying now the tools of communication (remailers, strong encryption, directions for building bombs and traps, cheap radio transmitters), as well as the tools for deception (how hard is it to build a fake GPS transmitter?), and the understanding that the US governemnt has grown cancerous, we bring closer the begenning and the end of the revolution. We bring its start closer by forcing the Government to show its true colors, turning more people against it. We bring its finish closer by having ready the tools to render ineffective the large fighting machines we have paid for, by making it clear tht the government does not have the support of the people, and by making it clear that once committed, we will have to fight. So, Tim, we disagree that it will be like nothing seen before. It will be like many modern revolutions, because we can't force the government to fight on our terms today. 20 years later, we will look back, and realize that governments have murdered most of the innocents they will ever kill, because will can deploy technology to make government voluntary. But we're not there, and getting there may be bloody. There is, of course, Duncan's Berlin Wall theory, but I fear things will have to get worse before they get better. Adam Tim May wrote: | Some of the questions by Mark Rogaski and others ask about the nature of | the revolution I and others are predicting and encouraging. | | What will a just revolution, like those anticipated by Jefferson, Franklin, | and others, look like? | | The British thought the colonial rebels were "playing dirty" by shooting | from behind trees instead of marching in bright uniforms with drums and | bugles to herald their way. | | Modern armies think freedom fighters are "terrorist scum" for not fighting | honestly and fairly in their own M-1 Abrams tanks and aircraft carriers. | | So, too, will revolutionaries be seen as fighting "unfairly" and being | unethical sneaks, child killers, and terrorists. | | (As if children and other innocents did not die in various incidents in | past wars, on all sides.) | | When Jefferson predicted that a revolution was needed every 20 years or so, | he surely was not saying that throwing one party out of leadership and | putting the other party in was an example of such a revolution, or that | "campaign reform" is such an example. Nor was he saying that the only valid | revolution would be when a buch of citizens or states got together their | own army and marched on Washington. | | (Actually, raising such an army is in violation of numerous laws about | heavy weaons, licenses to carry weapons, etc. No doubt illegal. Ironically.) | | No, the revolution, when it comes, will likely be different from anything | quite like we've seen to date. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:28:22 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > The real problem as I see it with democracy is that not only do your > neighbours get to vote to have you locked up for something which is > none of their business, and has no conceivable effect up on them; but > they actually get to vote for you to be charged for the "service" of > being locked up to protect you from yourself. Exactly what kind of democracy are you speaking of? Sounds like you are lumping them all into one big bucket, a disservice to all involved in this discussion and a popular spin-doctor tactic. If so, please be so kind as to demonstrate how a representative, constitutional, and majority democracy are the same? And for the record, we have a constitutional representative democracy. Personaly, I figure you must be one of those folks with a cognitive disfunction. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not understand? > The wild west was better than this state of affairs -- people didn't > have the energy or inclination to waste their own resources being nosy > parkers, and those that did were apt to wind up full of lead. Boy, you history is simply fucked. If you seriosly think the west was like television you should spend more time reading books and period newspapers and less time looking at the boob-tube. At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders associated with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular entertainment media and spin-doctor culture would have you believe. Get your fucking facts straight. Face off's at high-noon simply didn't happen and poeple didn't run around having gun fights all the time. I would suggest *strongly* that if nothing else you review the western history series by Time*Life, should be at your local library, and UT Press put out a book called "The Texas Rangers". I have both of them but unfortunately they are in my shop 30 miles away. A lookup at your local bookstore should get them if you are truly interested in how it was. "The Quick & The Dead" was a movie, not a historical documentary. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 20:06:10 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> writes: > > > > Exactly what kind of democracy are you speaking of? Sounds like you are > > lumping them all into one big bucket, > > I figure it's a reasonable summary of a lot of democracies right now. What is a reasonable summary? Reasonable to who? What 'lot' of democracies? > > If so, please be so kind as to demonstrate how a representative, > > constitutional, and majority democracy are the same? And for the > > record, we have a constitutional representative democracy. > > Didn't say they were "the same". No, but you certainly imply it with your broad brush. > But they do share a characteristic: > distortions of free market in the form of voting for theft and > redistribution of other peoples money leading to annoying government > micro-management, and general do-gooder busy-body-ness, and the many > laws on thought crimes. Again, demostrate your assertion(s). Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? > > Personaly, I figure you must be one of those folks with a cognitive > > disfunction. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you not > > understand? > > I understand it, but US politicians either don't, or don't care and > largely ignore the constitution. What does it matter whether I > understand it or not? If you don't understand it you can't use it, effectively or otherwise. > Your constitution says you can own and carry > guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you > can not. Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand > the constitution? No, my responce is prove your assertions. Explain to me why you believe these are valid views and why they provide a more usable environment for understanding what is going on then others. > > > The wild west was better than this state of affairs -- people didn't > > > have the energy or inclination to waste their own resources being nosy > > > parkers, and those that did were apt to wind up full of lead. > > > > Boy, you history is simply fucked. If you seriosly think the west was like > > television you should spend more time reading books and period newspapers > > and less time looking at the boob-tube. > > I don't own a TV, and so don't watch much (by choice -- it's mostly > garbage); printed mass media is a bit better, but not that much. Nice side step. > > At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders associated > > with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular entertainment media > > and spin-doctor culture would have you believe. Get your fucking > > facts straight. > > I know, that was my point; recall that I said the murder rate was low. No, you said *nothing* about murder rate. What you did say was that back in the old days people ran around killing those who bothered them. Which isn't true either. > The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their > neighbours what they could think. Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997? Demonstrate your point.

3 2

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

More proof that the PGP folks have some kind of alterior motive. Translation: They created a software package which purposefully breaks the previous free versions of that package. Then they release a development kit for that package with outrageous licensing fees. Welcome to the new PGP Inc. >First, PGPsdk has been released: > http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ >The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no >freeware or shareware applications using it. Here's an example of the >licensing: >License Plan #1 > Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, > PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on >royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per >server) >Add Certificate Server Integration: > $5,000 advance on royalties >Support/Upgrades > (includes email support by a trained > developer support technician) > $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments

1 0

PGPsdk is out, but not for free
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

More proof that the PGP folks have some kind of alterior motive. Translation: They created a software package which purposefully breaks the previous free versions of that package. Then they release a development kit for that package with outrageous licensing fees. Welcome to the new PGP Inc. >First, PGPsdk has been released: > http://www.pgp.com/sdk/ >The bad news: the licensing fees are so high that there will be no >freeware or shareware applications using it. Here's an example of the >licensing: >License Plan #1 > Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, > PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on >royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per >server) >Add Certificate Server Integration: > $5,000 advance on royalties >Support/Upgrades > (includes email support by a trained > developer support technician) > $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

## In-reply-to: <19971101145349.14850(a)ultra7.umr.edu> (message from Matthew Nuckolls on Sat, 1 Nov 1997 14:53:49 -0600) Subject: Re: cute. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Matthew Nuckolls says > Warning: The following message is apolitical. > > > -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > > mQCNAzRbd7MAAAEEAONwsEpUgiezyfP6lxBzM5SfHJS6MK12JyR09KBZp2rrW680 > > ... > > =6dKS > > -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > > What's the point in distribuing your public key through the same > channels as a signature? Kinda defeats the purpose. The purpose is to create a persistent nym. The signature, and public key ensures that you know that this message is from the same person as you were attempting to nit pick :-] > I can't verify that the given public key is indeed yours, since > you're anonymous. True. So it's only as good as the keys you might fetch from a keyserver that you have no connection to in the web of trust. You aren't supposed to link it to my True Name. All that can be done is to get a signature from a timestamp server, and a signature from Bill Stewart's nym key signing service. I don't think there are any timestamp servers which provide key signatures. Anyone want to start one? This is important because it prevents someone else from generating more keys with the same userID, such as happened with Tim May's blacknet key. The only protection I have against that is the public record of my key being posted to cypherpunks. The http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/ archive helps as a public record of first publishing of a key with this userID. A timestamp service signature on my key would be a better solution. Amad3us -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBNFugu/KMuKFNFivhAQEJUwP7BUCoER9V60RDWQHLRNB1tGudDwWtQsRy lnZJuI+VK9ljr5ze6O8b7/3WLItSqxyd4o+yyf/hx7SARqyZ1BV6KEljUXe7i3RQ 4Dy5H7/E+hZe9B4cN9OYs8A2oAcLKs5fIYSKqyEado6+IL4G9YrDTNmz28z/flmY kvfVsPWKk7w= =oXSI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQCNAzRbd7MAAAEEAONwsEpUgiezyfP6lxBzM5SfHJS6MK12JyR09KBZp2rrW680 4vbKAO/oteftRRM1jYYaQM6pUd2Tbb9z+cSuQGr2GH9kQ0Y7bllh89E1PItj7frG ARSCbt1gbbXDXEICY8Ne1zZB7FfMt2qGVBdrKG/i2vfdZa5+n/KMuKFNFivhAAUR tCNBbWFkM3VzIDxjeXBoZXJwdW5rc0BjeWJlcnBhc3MubmV0PokAlQMFEDRbjMPy jLihTRYr4QEB38ED/1P9L2yLURl5B2GJok3eIf6EnF1ahFxSK7wuK++YfKRKb3Ku oPTzwSXH+92PZX28dpC+aYu8Qb0dMSCk4Cadn9cxz4n42u509JU4z0o897lB4u2I TxV3YKbBAQSv/jZ/Gq8drdFtemQXUPigNL6IjDAPc/REiHv7IZNKAniSBo1P =N8Gg -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

PGPsdk is out, but not for free (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 16:36:05 -0500 > From: Anonymous <anon(a)anon.efga.org> > Subject: PGPsdk is out, but not for free > >License Plan #1 > > > Authentication, Encryption/Decryption, > > PGP/MIME, Key Management: $25,000 advance on > >royalties + 2% of product revenues (minimum $1 per client and $35 per > >server) > > >Add Certificate Server Integration: > > $5,000 advance on royalties > > >Support/Upgrades > > (includes email support by a trained > > developer support technician) > > $1,500 per year + 15% of royalty payments > Hmmm, will have to rethink suggesting any PGP based products to my customers now. I simply refuse to pay anybody any percentage of my product revenues simply because I use their tool. I buy a SDK for a flat fee like I buy a book, screwdriver, or a car. I can't imagine Black & Decker wanting a percentage of the house sale simply because the carpenter used their hammers and saws. Ford or Chevy wanting to see my income statement each year so they can figure out how much I owe them because I drive their brand of vehicle to my customers sites...yeah right. $25k?...PGP Inc.....Get a clue. Hell, at those kinds of license fees I can afford to develop my own libraries. What I do with it and how much money I make with it is my income alone (minus taxes) *unless* they want to cover some percentage of my business costs (which I don't want). ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >Where have you folks been the last couple of years? Given that the list has >been discussing the Bernstein case (and 30 of us even attended some of >Judge Patel's hearings in SF), and the Junger and Karn cases have been >extensively reported, and the CDA was overturned, I'd certainly say court >battles have been a priority for a long time. ............................................. The Bernstein, Junger, and Karn cases are all about a single issue. The EFF focuses on the same computer/internet/privacy issues. What I was envisioning was the fundamental conflicts like a basic observance of respect for human beings in their pursuit of the Three Virtues (the opposite of the Four Horsement <g>) - Life, Liberty, Happiness, and for legitimate consent - not the manufactured "voluntary" complicity to demands like taxation and all the other crimes which have been discussed on the list. >Certainly I don't know of any Cypherpunks pushing for legislative >solutions. Most of us have explicitly condemned the legislative actions, >realzing that Congress can only make things worse. I wouldn't expect any new laws to be passed as a result of this kind of court battle, nor expect Congress or even the Supremes to approve of and support it. The only purpose would be to challenge the whole lot of government agencies who accept the above-mentioned flaws as unquestionable government rights-of-way. A revolutionary sort of action, in other words, not for the purpose of getting legislation/legislators on "our side", but to back them up against the wall and squish them. (Operation Squish. heh-heh. Ya'll remember that?) I don't know exactly how this could be brought about, but I would expect it would have more the structure and sense of a 'noble cause' such as the Originals brought to their revolution, than simply to gather into groups like the 'Patriots' and the 'Freemen' and such, who are more incoherent than admirable. The Originals also made their attempts at negotiating their case with unsympathetic rulers, preceding their realization that they were getting nowhere. And it is more than likely that current court judges are just as dull and dense and morally asleep at the wheel as King George. But the thing is to bring out these flaws explicitly, in the place designed for such things, where they may be attended to in the civilized manner created for such conflicts of MO. The Case of the Individual against the State. I can dream, can't I? It would make a great TV series. (You, of course, would rather spit-polish your guns and buy more ammo.) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: democracy?! (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:06:03 GMT > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: democracy?! > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> writes: > > What is a reasonable summary? Reasonable to who? What 'lot' of > > democracies? > > This is getting kind of repetitive. I agree, I keep asking for your examples and proof and you keep avoiding providing them. You should consider being a politician or a lawyer. It's a real pity you can't seem to approach this discussion in good faith and with a sense of open analysis. > Perhaps you could provide a > counter example to disprove my claim that democracies result in more > petty privacy and freedom invasive laws than would be the case with a > pure market anarchy Pure market anarchy? What the hell is a pure market? I know what a free market is. Define it first. Explain how it, without an explicit bill of rights, will protect my rights? Explain how we don't end up with a Microsoft that owns everything which effectively reduces to a commercial communism? Where are my 'exit' choices then? What in the world would motivate such an entity to provide me with the resources to be a direct competitor, something clearly not in its best interest for long-term survival? How will others learn the technology and its applications outside the purvue of these economic regulatory entities. The unlimited expansion of the rail-roads in the 1800's is a excellent simili for comparison for both what such a system would be like as well as the major problems it *doesn't* address. Taminy Hall ring any bells? There was a free market political system if there ever was one; pay me and I'll do it for you, don't and you can freeze in hell. A more modern example is the history of the telecommunications companies which even after being broken up have now re-combined so that we in effect only have 3 domestic tel-comm providers, and they are discussing how to combine their resources. Further explain why such a system will guarantee that my views will at least be addressed at some level and not relegated a priori to a trash-heap because it goes against the market analysis of some bunch of bean-counters? Who do I go to for resolution of claims against these entities, the self-same entities? You call that justice, equality, or even representation? Explain why and how such a economic based system will guarantee my right to free speech or even to run a small business which I currently do when it is clear that I am in open competition with the very entities which provide me the resources to make the money? What is the economic motivation for the resource controlling entities to support my freedoms when it reduces their income? Explain how your system prevents economic black-balling? Another implication is that we will see more of the sort of business stategies implimented by PGP Inc. (for example) where they want a percentage of your income *without* accepting a percentage of the risk, economic tyrany is tyrany just the same. What recourse do I have if the monopolies which arise in such a system decide that the services or resources I need won't be provided? Am I then supposed to just calmly accept becoming some prole for some zaibatsu? What happens when those monopolies decide that if they work together they can further streamline the market, and my going to church or taking a vacation goes against those business requirements? It sounds like you are supporting Hirshleifer who says: "The mere fact of low income under anarchy... of itself provides no clear indication as to what is likely to happen next." [Personly, Hirshleifer is an idiot who apparently doesn't hang out on the wrong side of the tracks and therefore has no clue as to what motivates the poor or stupid.] Which in effect breaks down into one of two results for individuals (which all free market anarchists admit openly) who don't have sufficient income to buy their indipendance and their say: 1. they devote a great deal of effort to fighting to gain control over resources. or 2. they capitulate to some other party and turn over their resources for food and shelter. History would argue that people will accept neither of these as a solution to day-to-day living. Economists should stay out of politics. It's one of the reasons that at no point in either the Declaration of Indipendance or the Constitution that businesses are given rights are even given consideration except in regards of taxation of inter-state commerce. People should have seperation of government and religion and that includes the worship of wealth. > (perhaps old Iceland would be a suitable anarchy > to consider as a comparison). If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore? If it provided such a superior governmental system providing the maximum return on investment why did it go away? Why did they instead elect to go with a king? Futher, explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without demonstrating the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual democracies such as ancient Greek ran into? It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of people who are related, share world-models and have limited resources and quite another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not thousands of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs? > Do you have a democracy in mind which > doesn't result in lots thought crimes and other "crimes" which are so > far removed from normal free market schelling points. It's just a > natural tendency of a democracy. Thought crimes and such are not a result of any political system but a result of the psychology of people. Please be so kind as to demonstrate (along with my previous questions I am still waiting on) how a political system effects the basic psychological development of the participants. Further, explain how the belief in the resolving power of money is any different than the resolving power of Buddha? You seem to be claiming that if we pray to the all mighty dollar all will be right with the world. > > > But they do share a characteristic: > > > distortions of free market in the form of voting for theft and > > > redistribution of other peoples money leading to annoying government > > > micro-management, and general do-gooder busy-body-ness, and the many > > > laws on thought crimes. > > > > Again, demostrate your assertion(s). > > > > Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? > > Who? What? Current democracices. When? Now. Why? Market > distortion. How? Politicians brokering legalised mass theft and > market distortion for game theoretic reasons. You seriously expect any reasonable person to be satisfied with such a side-step? And in case you hadn't realized it, the entire concept of free-market is a result of those same game theories. Are you claiming that such free market based systems will abandon game theory when it clearly provides insight into how those free markets operate? > > > Your constitution says you can own and carry > > > guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you > > > can not. Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand > > > the constitution? > > > > No, my responce is prove your assertions. > > You prove your assertion: are you saying there are no gun controls in The simply fact that one has a constitution that guarantees certain rights is *not* a guarantee that others won't find those rights threatening and want to take them away (see Hirshleifer's two alternatives above). And your assertion is that if we go to a free market anarchy then we no longer have to worry about anyone telling us what we can and can't do? Please be so kind as to demonstrate why a free market anarchy will prohibit monopolistic organizations who would be just as threatened by armed individuals as any other centralized organization? > > Explain to me why you believe these are valid views > > because they are a statement of readily observable reality? Where do I observe them? Give examples. Whose reality? Are you seriously claiming that there is one absolute reality? > > What you did say was that back in the old days people ran around > > killing those who bothered them. Which isn't true either. > > That bit was a statement of a belief that few people would be inclined > to invade someones privacy and attempt to impose sanctions for what > they viewed as thought crimes. It takes governments or religions to > do this kind of thing, individuals aren't likely to Governments and religions *ARE* people. There are times where I think you have said the stupidist thing possible and then you keep typing. Individuals are the ones who killed the Jews, put pepper spray in the eyes of demonstrators, and just about everything else that gets done. > > > The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their > > > neighbours what they could think. > > > > Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997? > > Demonstrate your point. > > I say: there were less laws in 1897 US than 1997 US. > > Tell me: do you refute that claim? I don't know, never looked at the numbers *AND* it isn't my job to refute it. *IT IS* your job to prove it since it is *YOUR* claim and apparently has some relevance to your thesis' validity. The number of laws at any given time is irrelevant and immaterial to my position (nice attempt at a straw man). It is plain stupidity to make claims and not have a clue as to the reality. I shure as hell won't be asking people to put their lives in my hands unless I could address such issues in a manner that they would feel comfortable with. Gut feelings are almost always wrong. The mere fact that you feel that we should take such claims at face value is a clear indication of what kind of worth you place in others. You believe yourself to be an angel apparently. Oh, and for the record. Studies of deaths during the 1800's indicate that the vast majority were accidental self-inflicted gunshot wounds, far more than the Indians or other 3rd parties inflicted combined. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 3

Re: Technology 'secures' gunfire [CNN]
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonathan Wienke wrote: > At 09:06 PM 10/31/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >> Now police have an electronic witness that can provide similar > >> assistance: a device called SECURES that pinpoints the time and > >> location of gunshots. > In order for this system to be worth anything, it would have to be able to: ... > 3. Monitor conversations throughout the coverage area. A suspicious sound > preceded by a male voice saying "Give me your money, bitch" would be much > more interesting than one preceded by a revving engine. This would have > the added benefits of allowing LEO's to track fugitives via the sound of > their footsteps, their breathing, vehicle engine sounds, etc., as well as > gathering voiceprint data from crimes in progress. > > I think point 3 is the scariest. A properly designed system could do > voiceprint analysis of almost every word spoken in public, tie the > conversations to the identities of the speakers, and archive the time, > location, content and participants of every spoken conversation for long > periods of time in a database that could be searched by keyword, speaker > identity, time, and/or location. The following searches could be done: > > 1. "I want a list of everyone who uttered the words 'buy' and 'crack' in > the same sentence between 2100 and 0330 hours within 500 feet of 123 Maple > Drive between August 7 and December 5." > > 2. "I want a list of all participants in conversations with Citizen-Unit > 754-35-9710 which included the phrase 'BATF agent' in the last 6 months. > > 3. "I want a map of Citizen-Unit 754-35-9710's movements for the last 2 > weeks." ... Jonathan has hit on a point which illustrates the danger of the surveillance technologies that are _already_ in place, vis a vis, the Internet. Something lost in the euphoria over the citizen's radical new ability to access information: Yahoo Search--"Posts by _me_." is that the same technolgy, and more, is at the fingertips of the proverbial 4 Horsemen AND (now for the _really_ bad news) at the fingertips of "John Law, the Citizen's Friend." Sadly, "garbage in--garbage out" _has_ always, and _will_ always, result(ed) in such inanities as Drug Counselors being 'rated' at the same level as Drug Dealers when the computer spits out the results of a badly structured "search for the _bad_guys_." Naturally, when the police mistakenly kick in the door of a Drug Counselor, it is always a 'regretable tragedy' when they shoot holes in the ten year old boy in the hallway who is holding an over-ripe banana which 'looked like a weapon.' (Almost a true life example, told to me by a friend who left her career in law enforcement because she was still in possession of a conscience which was capable of recognizing that children killed by those who are 'just following orders' are just as dead as the children killed by those who are 'out of control.') {The person in question 'pulled' her shot at the last moment, upon realizing she was about to murder a child with a banana. Because the banana "could have been a weapon," an investigation was not required for an officer firing upon an unarmed citizen. I regard this lady as a wonderful example of someone who has held themself to a higher standard than their government regulators and their peers. What is a shame is that someone who _should_ be the type of person charged with protecting us had to leave the system because there is no future for those who choose sanity, logic and humanity over 'following orders.'} If you stop to consider Jonathan's examples of (paraphrased), "give me the names of every citizen in location 'A' at time 'B' who has used the word 'normal' in an email in the last ten years, etc., etc." in light of Internet search engine capabilities being extended to such technologies as 'citizen physical location monitoring', 'voice recognition', 'DNA pattern analysis' (e.g. heriditary potential for violence, etc.), then the future may be very scary, indeed. Think about this: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the person who is reading this post is the 'only' individual, out of over 20 million processed by the Never Wrong Criminal Identification Compter System, who is in the post reader's general location, today, has completed their high school education and has a family member who has committed murder in the last five generations." (What? You claim you are not the _only_ person in New York City, with a high school education. Nice try, pal, but the computer is never wrong.) "Although no murder has been committed yet, statistics show that someone in that area will be, within the next two days, so I ask that you return a verdict of 'Guilty of murder in the first degree' and we will pick up and execute the reader of this post as soon as a body turns up." ...in light of _this_: A citizen was found guilty of murder by a jury, based on the slim eyewitness testimony of a passerby who caught a fleeting glimpse of the murderer, despite testimony from over a dozen people that the defendant was, at the time of the murder, attending a wedding thousands of miles away. Some of those giving testimony did not even know the man prior to meeting him at the wedding, and were in no way related to the man, but the jury was still swayed by the prosecutor's claim that this wide variety of law-abiding, average citizens were lying to try and protect the defendant. Do you have a great-great-grandfather who committed murder? Then you are, by heridity, a potential murderer. It's in your blood! This is '10 points against' you. All of the kindness you have don in your life does not count in your favor, because any fool can see that it was done in an attempt to trick the jury. > The Big Brother potential of such a system should be obvious. What is > really scary is that such a system could be built mostly with currently > existing hardware, and at most a few man-years of software development. If > each node in the network performs its own speech to text conversion and > archiving, and coordinates with a central voiceprint ID server, (which > could also provide the sync signal that the nodes would use to > cross-reference between nodes to locate sounds) each node could consist of > a Pentium 200 with some specialized audio signal processing cards and 15-20 > GB of storage. The only really new thing required would be an .AVI-style > format for storing MPEG audio, a text transcript of said audio (which would > need to include keywords for gunshots, passing vehicles, and other events > of interest), and location coordinates (updated on a second to second > basis) which could be indexed for reasonably efficient searching. Of course, Jonathan is a raving lunatic for suggesting these outlandish possibilities, much like the mentally unstable people who history records as believing that one day people would be able to send electromagnetic waves through the atmosphere and have their images and voices appear on machines in distant places. Seriously, history has shown that any technology capable of being used for great evil _will_ be used for great evil. The reason that technology radically increases the ante in the game between good and evil is that if one 'evil' person is in control of technology that ten million 'good' people do not have access to, then the basic humanity or inhumanity of humankind, in general, is really not an important part of the equation which will determine the future. (I challenge all other cypherpunks to a fistfight, the only rule being that I can use an Uzi, and you can't.) Remember...when all is said and done, my dad was an optomist. George Orwelle Jr.

1 0

french cypherpunks
by Judith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi there, Are there any french cypherpunks or french speaking canadian cypherpunks on this list ? I have to discuss privacy on the net in french. To read some articles on this subject would be very helpfull to learn to use the right type of jargon: the dutch-french dictionary does not handle jargon of any type. Btw: did anybody scan their photo's of the HIP '97 (in this case near the cypherpunkerstent-site) yet? I couldn't find any. Merci, best regards, Judith

1 0

Re: Unlocking crypto-secrets Wired article
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Dwight Arthur <dwightarthur(a)mindspring.com> >To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley(a)ariadne.com> >CC: dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu >Subject: Re: Unlocking crypto-secrets Wired article > I have no inside knowledge but picture yourself > as a senator, really concerned about getting re-elected. Picture > yourself looking at video of the victims of some terrorist act somewhere > in the world, staggering out of some ruined building and expiring on > camera. Then picture yourself hearing that if you vote the wrong way and > this happens in the U.S. (or to U.S. citizens anywhere) your name will > be in the papers as the reason that law enforcement was unable to > prevent this. It's hard to argue. And alsom maybe Jim Bell's stuff... Does anybody have any knowledge or heard any rumors of Bell's essay circulating among political circles? Ciao jfa -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants physicists and engineers, LabView programing. PGP encryption keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0

Re: cute.
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Amad3us wrote: >Matthew Nuckolls says >> What's the point in distribuing your public key through the same >> channels as a signature? Kinda defeats the purpose. > >The purpose is to create a persistent nym. The signature, and public >key ensures that you know that this message is from the same person >as you were attempting to nit pick :-] It has been my experience that it is more fun to operate a persistent identity than to post unsigned and unverifiable messages. Providing the key is at least a convenience for people who don't have it already - it saved me a trip to the key server. >> I can't verify that the given public key is indeed yours, since >> you're anonymous. > >True. So it's only as good as the keys you might fetch from a >keyserver that you have no connection to in the web of trust. > >You aren't supposed to link it to my True Name. > >All that can be done is to get a signature from a timestamp server, >and a signature from Bill Stewart's nym key signing service. What would be really nice is if the mailing list machines time stamped messages. There was a discussion a little while ago suggesting that toad.com had been compromised by people who were sowing dissension by partially distributing certain messages. Had toad signed all of its messages, it would be possible to obtain evidence supporting this hypothesis without relying entirely on the word of people we may not know. Had somebody compromised toad, they would still have to correctly sign messages. Later it would have been possible to prove this had occurred by comparing messages and signatures. This would also prevent an attack where somebody forges mail from a cypherpunks list machine to flush out identities. If the attacker sends a unique message to every person, he or she will be able to break an identity if the message is replied to on the list. >This is important because it prevents someone else from generating more >keys with the same userID, such as happened with Tim May's blacknet key. >The only protection I have against that is the public record of my key >being posted to cypherpunks. The http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/ >archive helps as a public record of first publishing of a key with this >userID. I'm not sure a timestamp matters that much for "authenticating" your key. After all, you don't own "Amad3us", you own key 0x4D162BBE1. If another "Amad3us" shows up, what matters if their string of posts are worth reading, not whether they borrowed your handle. It would cause confusion, but since the cypherpunks are so good at slinging bits, we should be able to handle this. It might even have an advantage: reporters and secret police types will have a harder time dealing with the cypherpunks without adopting some of our technology and ideas and sharing them with others. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFu/fZaWtjSmRH/5AQGSdAf8DdZj05c4/WS/V9YF/o1lZ9W7/5vGlTDf mvU8nFPNT4TB9eha7UW/Ub2xaUI4TneBrWrIwXTeEqo1slUbzmShneeUoUlKMEho +PlrA8NjQhh/QRwMXsVUp4vtoV3oDUbCTRLE8PWIikC7Rpo92UocujfFhsey3Ewu /SCA/TrkjVO8efeR4H6GOBnVWd/+4YigLPtZhP6QzlKjf3Soq5OJNfVlHA3ci+3a UgbM+IQ/OTTkXMVbya60veWrN6/Njo/66D0EyUuHB5/bUHkFIjnWaz1DSG8g0vJq XfFNOusz9Dkrhz0gearv/fbRb93GxXRejTK/Jo9sMJta8pWAm4d1Yg== =5Loi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Free Market Anarchy (Beck's Folly) - Fundamental flaw
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The fundamental flaw with the justification of a Free Market Anarchy and also the fundamental condemnation of Democracy is that of taxation. However, the theory of democracy does not in any way address the issues of taxation, only how laws are made and what the boundaries on those laws are. In fact, until about the first third of this century there was NO personal taxation in this country at the federal level. Clear prima facia , and to use Beck's verbage 'real', evidence that the assertion that personal taxation and democracy are irrevocably wedded. Ask yourself, why is it that no free market anarchist *ever* mentions commenality in humanity? Why do their have inherent and implicit in their systems a class structure? They would have you believe this is natural, it is not. Class structures are reflections of the beliefs of the people, not some fundamental law of nature. Furhermore, Free Market Anarchy does not address the issues of protection from abuse. It does not recognize in any manner any mechanism for redress of grievances unless you happen to be one of the few who controls the wealth. It further assumes that those who don't have wealth will willingly take this station in life as a given and simply work for those who do have wealth and accept without resentment that they will forever be denied any sort of opportunity to change their station in life except at the whim of the power brokers. It further does not in any way address issues of life, liberty, or pursuits of happines - only monetary wealth. It is clear that having wealth does not in any manner guarantee any sort of empathy for others in the holder. If anthing, history demonstrates that such 'lords of wealth' are pragmatic about collecting wealth to the point of predation. This argument from the specific to the general is fundamentaly flawed and the conclusion suffers because of it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. How that power is obtained, by vote or specie, is irrelevant as clearly shown by history. Some hold that the majority of the populace suffer taxation at the point of a gun. This assertion is also false. There have historicaly been several political parties which have promised to eliminate personal taxation. In every case those parties could not control more than a truly minimal percentage of the vote. Yes, people say taxation is too high, they do not hold the assertion that taxes should be completely eliminated. Free Market Anarchies are doomed to the same sort of death, and if ever implimented the same sorts of abuse, as all other non-democratic systems. Also, recognize that those who support such systems have a set of commen character flaws. First, they can't differentiate the implimentation from the theory of political systems. They would have you believe that if a given implimentation of a system is flawed or broken than all systems of that ilk are then broken or flawed. Clearly history does not support such assertions. In short, they would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Secondly, these in general are the sorts of people who find glee when they see a polic officer run over in the street. Do you seriously believe that anyone this cold and uncarring would not hesitate for an instant in putting pepper spray in your eyes? Thirdly, they express a view which I call Theory X equality. In short, as long as they are the ones making the profit, the fact that you suffer for it, justly or not, is irrelevant and justified. In more prosaic words, the ends *always* justifies the means. An assertion that history also does not support. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Free Market Anarchy (Beck's Folly) - Fundamental flaw (fwd) [correction]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> > Subject: Free Market Anarchy (Beck's Folly) - Fundamental flaw > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:20:20 -0600 (CST) > The fundamental flaw with the justification of a Free Market Anarchy and > also the fundamental condemnation of Democracy is that of taxation. > > However, the theory of democracy does not in any way address the issues of > taxation, only how laws are made and what the boundaries on those laws are. > In fact, until about the first third of this century there was NO personal > taxation in this country at the federal level. Clear prima facia , and to use > Beck's verbage 'real', evidence that the assertion that personal taxation and > democracy are irrevocably wedded. ^ is false. > Ask yourself, why is it that no free > market anarchist *ever* mentions commenality in humanity? Why do their have > inherent and implicit in their systems a class structure? They would have > you believe this is natural, it is not. Class structures are reflections of > the beliefs of the people, not some fundamental law of nature. > > Furhermore, Free Market Anarchy does not address the issues of protection > from abuse. It does not recognize in any manner any mechanism for redress of > grievances unless you happen to be one of the few who controls the wealth. > It further assumes that those who don't have wealth will willingly take this > station in life as a given and simply work for those who do have wealth and > accept without resentment that they will forever be denied any sort of > opportunity to change their station in life except at the whim of the power > brokers. It further does not in any way address issues of life, liberty, or > pursuits of happines - only monetary wealth. It is clear that having wealth > does not in any manner guarantee any sort of empathy for others in the holder. > If anthing, history demonstrates that such 'lords of wealth' are pragmatic > about collecting wealth to the point of predation. > > This argument from the specific to the general is fundamentaly flawed and > the conclusion suffers because of it. > > Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. How that power is > obtained, by vote or specie, is irrelevant as clearly shown by history. > > Some hold that the majority of the populace suffer taxation at the point of > a gun. This assertion is also false. There have historicaly been several > political parties which have promised to eliminate personal taxation. In > every case those parties could not control more than a truly minimal > percentage of the vote. Yes, people say taxation is too high, they do not > hold the assertion that taxes should be completely eliminated. > > Free Market Anarchies are doomed to the same sort of death, and if ever > implimented the same sorts of abuse, as all other non-democratic systems. > > Also, recognize that those who support such systems have a set of commen > character flaws. First, they can't differentiate the implimentation from the > theory of political systems. They would have you believe that if a given > implimentation of a system is flawed or broken than all systems of that ilk > are then broken or flawed. Clearly history does not support such assertions. > In short, they would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Secondly, these > in general are the sorts of people who find glee when they see a polic > officer run over in the street. Do you seriously believe that anyone this > cold and uncarring would not hesitate for an instant in putting pepper spray > in your eyes? Thirdly, they express a view which I call Theory X equality. > In short, as long as they are the ones making the profit, the fact that you > suffer for it, justly or not, is irrelevant and justified. In more prosaic > words, the ends *always* justifies the means. An assertion that history also > does not support. > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > | | > | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | > | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | > | | > | -Alan Greenspan- | > | | > | _____ The Armadillo Group | > | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | > | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | > | .', |||| `/( e\ | > | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | > | ravage(a)ssz.com | > | 512-451-7087 | > |____________________________________________________________________| >

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:PGP Employee on MKR
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:02 PM 10/30/97 GMT, Adam Back wrote: > Even if you were to use CMR, it is dumb, dumb, dumb, to allow the > snoop key to remain after the message has passed the enforcer -- it > should strip it off on the way out. Unless, of course, the real intention of CMR is GMR. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:DEA trying to subpoena book dealers
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:20 AM 10/30/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > Makes it easier for cops to see that you're not a threat, > or that you are a threat. If your underwear's not Kevlar, > it's not contributing much to the process, and cops are > probably more embarassed about beating up naked people. Watch out for toilet plungers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Hello, thought you should see this
by srvce＠micro-net.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

LEARN THE SECRET TO MAKING OVER $2750.00 A WEEK, PART-TIME WITH YOUR HOME COMPUTER! It's fun, it's rewarding, and it's easy. This is so simple, most children could do it! All you need is a computer and E-Mail address to begin making excellent money while relaxing in the comfort of your own home. All it takes is a couple hours a day, and you'll have more than $2750.00 arriving in your mailbox every week! Right now there are only a few people around the country who know how to do this. And these few people are having the greatest time of their lives while their computers make them a fortune. They don't want anyone else to know how they're making all this money, but we at Crown Industries have decided to let a few more people in on the secret. Even if you are happy with your current job, you can use this system in your spare time to create a huge extra income. And let us assure you this system is completely legal. We are so sure anyone can make a fortune with this unique system, that we will even let you try it out for 30 days! If you're not 100% satisfied, just send it back within 30 days for a full refund. Once you begin to see how easy it is to make money with your computer, you will wish you had received this letter a long time ago. Anyone can do this, and since very little of your time is required, you will have a lot more time to spend doing the things you have always wanted to do. So take the first step toward financial freedom and order this powerful money making system today! You'll be glad you did! This offer will only be available for a limited time! To insure you receive your copy, order today! To receive your copy of our incredible computer money making system, along with a full 30 day money back guarantee, send a check or money order for $14.95 payable to: Crown Industries 1630 North Main St. Suite# 310 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Allow 4-6 days for delivery P.S. You simply must see this to believe it. Never in the history of America has it been possible to make this much money spending just a couple hours a day. We guarantee that anyone can make more than $2750.00 a week, part- time using our system and just one home computer or you get your money back!

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

After seeing the intents of PGP Inc. with the release of their new PGP that breaks the old free versions, I have all but written them off as anything but the Enemy, and am waiting for a public reply on the list by Tim May to make it official. But now what? Please someone answer my questions about PGP - it appears that the 5.x versions are not compatible with the 2.x versions which came previous. Is this so? Also, the direction they seem to be heading is in providing more and more non-free GAKked product. But aren't the 2.x and 5.x versions freeware? If so, can't others - a group of individuals - take that source code and build off of that? Piss on these assholes and their licensing fees. It was inevitable, anyway. They are a corporation after all, and the corporations are not on "our" sides. I can see a scenario where government is impotent and destroyed within 10 years. What will remain and will be harder to eradicate are the corporations. I don't think we should rely on corporate software whenever possible, because it always comes with an ulterior motive. Is there an effort to maintain a version of PGP based on the free 2.x sources that is not affiliateed with the fuckwads at PGP Inc.? If not, is it high time some of us began such an effort?

6 5

LAPD reject surplus bayonets [CNN]
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > LAPD REJECTS, RETURNS SURPLUS BAYONETS > > Sheriff November 1, 1997 > Web posted at: 10:03 p.m. EST (0303 GMT) > > SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- The Los Angeles Police Department has > decided to return the bayonets it has received from a U.S. military > surplus program.

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vlad the Mad wrote: >hence, I think we need to rely more on the courtroom-- it's >the only "language" that bureacrats understand. extremely >expensive, but more effective. it forces us to put our money >where our mouths are. "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" >and a lot of cash as well. the PRZ case proves the public >can support such a campaign. also tactics >as used by Softwar such as the FOIA attack approach. ....................................................... I'm agreeing with Vlad (euwwwww), mainly because I've had the same idea for a long time, about the effect of winning intellectual battles in a courtroom. This is a prime location for the airing-out of ideas, clarification of concepts, and making decisive conclusions about what is/is not the right way for governming bodies to behave, to do, to treat citizens, in relation to the original ideal (and could that ideal be clarified even further, for those who still don't get it?). It would require some 'real' libertarian lawyers of the kind cpunks could support. But wouldn't it be grand to watch as they decimated the opposition, as they reminded everyone of the raison d'etre for this exceptional nation, and as they 'put it to' a jury, in black & white, just what the deal is in a free society? Shoot, we don't need another President - just a good lawyer. Just imagine! Dream on! .. Blanc

2 1

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 19:50:49 -0800 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: effective GACK fighting > Vlad the Mad wrote: > > >hence, I think we need to rely more on the courtroom-- it's > >the only "language" that bureacrats understand. extremely > >expensive, but more effective. it forces us to put our money > >where our mouths are. "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" > >and a lot of cash as well. the PRZ case proves the public > >can support such a campaign. also tactics > >as used by Softwar such as the FOIA attack approach. > ....................................................... > > I'm agreeing with Vlad (euwwwww), mainly because I've had the same idea for > a long time, about the effect of winning intellectual battles in a > courtroom. This is a prime location for the airing-out of ideas, > clarification of concepts, and making decisive conclusions about what is/is > not the right way for governming bodies to behave, to do, to treat > citizens, in relation to the original ideal (and could that ideal be > clarified even further, for those who still don't get it?). It would > require some 'real' libertarian lawyers of the kind cpunks could support. I also agree. It is high time those of who believe in our rights put their money where our mouth is. But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. Also, let's start something relating to the 2nd. We should also move to have an amendment which requires all existing and future legislation pass constitutional review *prior* to being voted into existance. We should also move to have an amendment that *requires* government employees be responsible for their actions on a individual basis and eliminate the protection that Congress has put in place, that is *not* in the Constitution. We should further move to have the seizure laws revoked because they are not constitutional. The drug laws should also be attacked on that level as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

cute.
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What's the point in distribuing your public key through the same >channels as a signature? Kinda defeats the purpose. Esp since I can't >verify that the given public key is indeed yours, since you're anonymous. Well, there's some point in it. If I send an anonymous message, sign it with a key, and then include that key you can use that key to verify that it indeed was the key used to sign the message. For this to be of any value, however, future messages should be signed with that key but should not include it. This just proves that the person who wrote the last message is the same guy who wrote the first. That's about the only poitn I can see, though.

1 0

What I've been up to
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As some of you may know, I have been working on a skunk works project to further knowledge about smartcards and add smartcard support to crypto applications. While the latter isn't nearly ready for release, the former has resulted in a number of tools some on this list should find useful. Namely, we have a truly universal smartcard reader and software. Unlike the proprietary protocol garbage the smartcard vendors will sell you for lots of cash together with their overpriced toolkits, our reader uses only ISO standards and can handle *any* smartcard. In addition, we developed drivers and fully-automated scanning software for UNIX and Win32. If you don't get results just by typing "scan", then whatever you inserted isn't a smartcard. :-) At this time, we need sample smartcards and documentation. Anonymous donations of both is encouraged. For more information, please see https://www.cypherpunks.to/ All questions/offers should be directed to scard-admin(a)cypherpunks.to - -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFwSMvXUPTw3WtkkEQLSZQCg8EVW2bprGr4E21W8Qg6EELc9+gcAoMdZ 6LbtU7WCfpfsYPi+Gj4l5ecX =5Bi8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: effective GACK fighting (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >But, why do we need a lawyer? We have the right to represent ourselves, why >let somebody who has a intimate stake in the status quo represent us? Well, first of all I was being facetious, because of how people are always saying we need Leadership (tm) and need to elect another President in order to have a more Perfect Union. But I said we need a "good" lawyer - a libertarian lawyer - because I expect that it would take someone who had studied the legal system and made it their project to be well-educated and articulate on these matters, to be able to successfully represent the Consitutional values which we subscribe to. Maybe not. I myself don't think I could do it, although I would lend all kinds of backend support to whoever would, and frankly I don't think I would select you, either, Jim, because I don't think your arguments would be effective. I would be thrilled if someone like Tocqueville existed. He would get my vote. >Has there ever been a law suite brought against the Supreme Court or >Congress claiming their actions were unconstitutional? The amendment >relating to taxation for a start, repeal individual taxation and return to >the system originaly intended by the founding fathers. I don't know. But this is the sort of issue I was thinking of. >Also, let's start something relating to the 2nd. We should also move to [. . . ] Okay, you first. heh. You're being quite free with your recommendations. Remember, right now we're just a bunch of people sitting around their computers talking. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back wrote: >[Ed Note: Jim Choate wrote:] >> At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders >> associated with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular >> entertainment media and spin-doctor culture would have you >> believe. Get your fucking facts straight. > >I know, that was my point; recall that I said the murder rate was >low. The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling >their neighbours what they could think. It's not hard to believe that this was the case in some places and in some times, but a term like the "Wild West" covers a lot of time and territory. For example, in San Francisco in the early 1860s there was a very high murder rate, something like 1000 people were killed in one year and nobody was convicted. (Forgive minor factual errors as I haven't studied this in awhile.) I have also read reports of substantial violence in the mining communities of Nevada and California with minimal enforcement action taken. It seems likely to me that the low murder rate claim has some exceptions, even if we ignore the mutual atrocities between various native groups, Americans, and Mexicans. I would also like to see how pervasive the temperance movement was in the Wild West. By the late nineteenth century my impression is that it was going strong in the Wild West although it possibly hadn't grasped the levers of power yet. >> Face off's at high-noon simply didn't happen and poeple didn't run >> around having gun fights all the time. > >Right! I'm pretty sure there were gunfights, but that they happened a lot more quickly and a lot less formally than we see on TV. But, I could believe that overall they happened infrequently. Anybody have a reference? I am told that knife fighting was a lot more common than is widely known. A lot of poor runaways showed up to work in various mining towns and they were unable to afford expensive toys like guns. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFu5n5aWtjSmRH/5AQGsoQf7BfsZArO2JaJEGVAw9IzRGEQeykgrkFzc JXmCkT32PmZOA0uhMxPW9cC7ehmijwhr7HOVOKO7j4BlxqXemD4oV5M9/EwQfqzU rFgJJ/GIW5LF7h+HCI8gjsoS0VJtbpDs/d2zsuCOvwM4yXkQ330jwaAfk/iErgYs 3thfm7ZAgYcLJPeeCDc541b+eKAtxvbHoOCp3UTqM3EBws0NpDlD9+A3ZzT1a87e UAUsvesecZyz3e1ZHlqw4L08eHdmaMxtkHE3bDrnfJQA4Ij4HPa1ayMMlJmC1XhR U7PEl8CWC9dSLN2Z6pUpC0pIp3A6zqhISPxDW8nGpUipKwhojicXfQ== =lL5j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: cute
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > There was a discussion a little while ago suggesting that toad.com had > been compromised by people who were sowing dissension by partially > distributing certain messages. Had toad signed all of its messages, > it would be possible to obtain evidence supporting this hypothesis > without relying entirely on the word of people we may not know. How do signed messages deal with the incompleat distribushun problem? If legit signed messages are not sent to half the list, what does the sig gain us? > Had somebody compromised toad, they would still have to correctly sign > messages. But, depending on the compromise, this could be possible. > > This would also prevent an attack where somebody forges mail from a > > cypherpunks list machine to flush out identities. If the attacker > > sends a unique message to every person, he or she will be able to > > break an identity if the message is replied to on the list. Thats why its a good ideal to missquote peaple. And to only reply from the account you read on. And to use remalers. Monty Cantspell Editor in Chief Groan Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/groan_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantspell_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFu/fZaWtjSmRH/5AQGSdAf8DdZj05c4/WS/V9YF/o1lZ9W7/5vGlTDf mvU8nFPNT4TB9eha7UW/Ub2xaUI4TneBrWrIwXTeEqo1slUbzmShneeUoUlKMEho +PlrA8NjQhh/QRwMXsVUp4vtoV3oDUbCTRLE8PWIikC7Rpo92UocujfFhsey3Ewu /SCA/TrkjVO8efeR4H6GOBnVWd/+4YigLPtZhP6QzlKjf3Soq5OJNfVlHA3ci+3a UgbM+IQ/OTTkXMVbya60veWrN6/Njo/66D0EyUuHB5/bUHkFIjnWaz1DSG8g0vJq XfFNOusz9Dkrhz0gearv/fbRb93GxXRejTK/Jo9sMJta8pWAm4d1Yg== =5Loi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Japan's Constitution and GAK
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does someone have access to a verificable copy of Japan's Constitution? Someone pointed me to one on the web, which would seem to make difficult implemmenting international GAK systems. http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/japan.html Article 21. Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

new PGP key
by J. Lasser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Due to a hard drive crash near the beginning of last month and an inane lack of backups, I lost my old PGP keys (2047/0xDED5B791 and 1024/0xEC001E4D). I've generated a new key, enclosed below. Key info is as follows: Type Bits KeyID Created Expires Algorithm Use sec+ 2047 0x4CDD6451 1997-10-12 ---------- RSA Sign & Encrypt f16 Fingerprint16 = D8 5A 85 06 93 6C 86 E8 79 3A 07 AA 15 6E 3A BD I will personally verify this information at the physical DC Cypherpunk meeting tomorrow (well, today, actually), as well as hand out copies of the fingerprint. The key is also available at my web page, at either http://students.goucher.edu/jlasser/interests/pgpkey.html or http://gwyn.tux.org/~lasser/interests/pgpkey.html Yes, I keep backups now ;-) Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 2047/4CDD6451 1997/10/12 Jon Lasser <jon(a)lasser.org> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzRBY9QAAAEH/2q2YaKg6zOpzWNHyPuO2cdEAIAIhsmOPjOp61bnrU9LAyKK gNJn2+Tn9PTfbnq0S8HupLTvgUsSuv0P0d1SzgDV0LtgUy9CYrtwkcExvK6UO103 RksrpAP0+wbaAWjp2Qogn2ZJskn8wayl1J9cHX4VfFQNUxQyqBqV8HUK5W+R4N91 76bWX0QrX+yQm0wCW8PT6xTe5L23N7lfUsDawOxsjIxHom3dg2lr1zQ1Pu/4wrw7 Mcoj1Wy+kxOxpZaMPF8ylyu953LKaPPJw5yQpjtzKBdi/ZxFI86rB7K2nra1NxGi c8Yq+Jy+LzGwI0RF330zI2/wpvqsoSqcnUzdZFEABRG0G0pvbiBMYXNzZXIgPGpv bkBsYXNzZXIub3JnPokAlQMFEDRCtOcalOfjf5iOyQEBBTID/iqETsBM1EZaOJlr nbkSYEcfrnM29Uo2fgbD7mQlrgOb/jNScvh7LaHdU7yZMaYmszCrC29S06RZYSOf HUCN62yVVZyFlWECvqcjspTzi0tdmhhpjHLAdW3/odmEbW6fsWhTauPCo1pp4IXq lyo9so9iAtjGSDB6QfFhf4htAcuWiQCVAwUQNEGY2xN3Wx8QwqUtAQHLxgP6AnOj ZWIMYazhH2pYemXrHmmyMTtM+CqW+YFCgD4ioDnwZqsghaNF8d7klJ7zL2GNK9XX o2PbBowsrZJ8Nt4tAMdC++giYLqW4UCb0BO1oLnKO/khbcPR0J3F0nBfIejbc82U aM72raafmZjpqCspjD5hBMRSaoS0xZaTe+sCJzOJARUDBRA0QZiLXprN4cSo7vEB AUmoB/0YspOyZ0u+0XbQsMsM4GPVlPWib0WiVeWpF2sBmzzCET7JIM5LcmqU71GG sGa1j/1Xc4rXMflzdPTCm2l+oRiQIOAfhW6daLR13DXYLPnyZl6dpy2SvRA5gdpj vztoLc4WafmEs5T0+cLkD6WqJ2fUBFH30UO8kJgIm7dGucFE73pdQJ75Ss+AmeM7 9Hu0lKKtTnaLnxLktuiJb6/xyzmAReW+dT1BJg0iKn0J2qJD5ZvPm1KRsBINgSO+ mmxtjo8IgCX71KLcWy/JtdD3Dizm1sXjg+wBD81WLhuQzhbbA8yNvhjQOnHqSfpC hq4ixqQUA7WQXicq21hy+xQW4eHciQEVAwUQNEFj1aEqnJ1M3WRRAQFdtAf/RRdT nUmU/hCY+lnA5V5O0zEQa9kX3/WWQ5f8asVEjij2NqZcBxnthwDxF0kFcq89TmjS oOg+FGJv7r23H7rloIHcLowFq3Eg0+enR/RqOv32N3KxJCC2OIu2FuXs2bBKs64+ kqHqs6+SL0hTuWGAn9y+7VuXE+Qy1F/rUQ/Rj3w2ZKQKS9x/c8Nukor3yGAfgvce pr20K5AgMSGjZXO4GttyTkw4SSRL+OdT3cZ+b0JLwe2R4AU5lb3oVXpjkD1eMcCJ isTGMGc9kMBCDMarCbhr1tvJlAAp7I7A5GQgUI77r5y8OjEVOoOxTjiTmXDvUdp9 KTjzW/PqE9xzo0sLWA== =xg8Z -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -- Jon Lasser (410)383-7962 jon(a)lasser.org http://wauug.erols.com/~lasser/ New PGP key coming soon "Flap your ears, Dumbo! The feather was only a trick!"

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

## In-reply-to: <199711020051.QAA23884(a)sirius.infonex.com> (message from Mix on Sat, 1 Nov 1997 16:51:19 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: cute. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Monty says > What would be really nice is if the mailing list machines time stamped > messages. That would be nice. I wonder, could one of our list hosts add a script to sign outgoing majordomo traffic? Here's a script to do it: - --------------------8<-------------------- #!/usr/local/bin/perl $userID="cypherpunks\(a)algebra.com"; $pgp="/usr/local/bin/pgp"; $tmp="/tmp/.sig$$"; undef($/); $post = <STDIN>; ($headers,@body) = split(/\n\n/,$post);$body = join("\n\n",@body); open(PIPE,"|$pgp -satf +batchmode +verbose=0 -u $userID > $tmp"); print PIPE $body; close(PIPE); open(SIGNED,"<$tmp");$signed=<SIGNED>;close(SIGNED); print "$headers\n\n$signed"; unlink($tmp); - --------------------8<-------------------- It handles one mail only. If you want to run it on a mail folder, use formail. > This would also prevent an attack where somebody forges mail from a > cypherpunks list machine to flush out identities. If the attacker > sends a unique message to every person, he or she will be able to > break an identity if the message is replied to on the list. You could do something similar with independent parties posting hashes of messages in the feed they got to the list, or to subscribers to the service. The list bot signing is more convenient to check though with existing software. Also, unfortunately, most MUA pgp software doesn't check nested signatures, so a signature from the list would break ability to auto check signatures from posters. Here's another script to check the list added signature on receipt: - --------------------8<-------------------- #!/usr/local/bin/perl $userID="cypherpunks\(a)algebra.com"; $pgp="/usr/local/bin/pgp"; $tmp="/tmp/.sig$$";$in="/tmp/.in$$";$msg="/tmp/.msg$$"; undef($/); $post = <STDIN>; ($headers,@body) = split(/\n\n/,$post);$body = join("\n\n",@body); open(BODY,">$in");print BODY $body;close(BODY); $res = system("$pgp -f +batchmode +verbose=0 -u $userID < $in > $tmp 2> $msg"); open(SIGNED,"<$tmp");$signed=<SIGNED>;close(SIGNED); open(ERR,"<$msg");$err=<ERR>;close(ERR); if ($res==0) { ($who) = ($err =~ m/Good signature from user "(.*)"\./); if ($who !~ m/$userID/) { $res=1; } } $headers =~ s/\[FORGERY\]//g; if ($res) { $headers =~ s/(Subject: )([^\n]*)/\1\[FORGERY\] \2/g; } print "$headers\n"; print "X-Signature: ", $res ? "forgery" : "ok $who", "\n"; print "\n\n$signed\n"; unlink($tmp,$in,$msg); - --------------------8<-------------------- > I'm not sure a timestamp matters that much for "authenticating" your > key. After all, you don't own "Amad3us", you own key 0x4D162BBE1. Yes. Except for minor nit: 0x4D162BBE1 is susceptible to a 0xdeadbeef attack, anyone can generate another key with that keyID. Even the fingerprint is spoofable. But the combination is truly hard to spoof, and this I do own: 0xa11a8a18bf6dbe8362926e9458a3616d/0x4d162bbe1 (fingerprint/keyID). Amad3us (0xa11a8a18bf6dbe8362926e9458a3616d/0x4d162bbe1) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBNFwjxvKMuKFNFivhAQGYnAQA33Ss68TKF+QfDGweQZ7TAkbmlOeqPC/J iBoV5zA+skqdgs+PD2afLAhQn5otm7xbx7rBEnBgMOYff9GyKB6Bfs/po7juwqs5 dACGPZhc5kNf4f18V04jv5sr6PWLWdwsoVegshVsiHmQgWtG9UlnZ0wKe2ORKzxf sQkJsIe3/jA= =naXX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Privacy Software
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- nobody(a)replay.com (Anonymous) wrote: >After seeing the intents of PGP Inc. with the release of their new >PGP that breaks the old free versions, I have all but written them >off as anything but the Enemy, and am waiting for a public reply on >the list by Tim May to make it official. Personally, I don't think it is that useful to draw up enemy lists. It is clear PGP, Inc. cannot be relied upon to achieve our goals for us. I think a lot of people half expected something like this out of them, anyway. All that left wing politics and weird anti-business stuff from the PGP crowd did not augur well. >But now what? Please someone answer my questions about PGP - it >appears that the 5.x versions are not compatible with the 2.x >versions which came previous. Is this so? Also, the direction they >seem to be heading is in providing more and more non-free GAKked >product. But aren't the 2.x and 5.x versions freeware? If so, can't >others - a group of individuals - take that source code and build off >of that? The PGP source code is not the worst I've ever seen, but it's kind of odd. We should consider a rewrite, which gives us the added benefit that it will be completely unencumbered. It also gives us the opportunity to write it in a language other than C, one which truly supports encapsulation. C code is hard to verify with great confidence because it is possible to obfuscate it and introduce security holes. This means that C requires one to trust the authors to a greater extent than is desirable. It would also be neat if the code were written outside the United States and were put into the public domain. If a company snaps it up and bases a product on it - great! The more people using the code the better. The whole issue of compatibility is an interesting one. Would it be a good idea to have a cryptographic system which was completely incompatible with PGP, given the Big Brother risk? Something I've never liked about PGP is their approach to encrypting to multiple keys. For one thing, the PGP crowd seems overly conservative with bit expenditure, which is silly because bits are cheap. This means that creating entirely separate messages is completely economical. It also introduces security risk. Let's say one of the three public keys used to encrypt a message has been compromised. Let's say the other two parties live in places where they aren't supposed to be exposed to bad ideas. Once one key is compromised, the other recipients are compromised in receiving a forbidden message. On the other hand, if they were separately encrypted, the link between the three messages is not obvious. And, even if the messages *are* linked, it's still not obvious that the other recipients didn't get something else. It provides a lot of deniability. So, perhaps a protocol which does not support anything more than one encryption key per message would be a good idea. Something else that bothers me about PGP is compression. It strikes me as bad design to build this into an encryption program. Zimmermann has suggested that this increases security. I doubt this. Modern algorithms like IDEA (please correct me if I am wrong) have the property that if you get one bit, you've got them all. And, I wonder if compression doesn't actually weaken security? Let's say I forward a known message with some commentary. Since the compression tables will be known, it seems like the increased size of the message could provide some interesting information about the preceding commentary. All by itself, this probably doesn't matter, but combined with other information it might result in a breach. In any event, that which is ambiguous should be eliminated. It would also be nice if the messages were padded to predetermined sizes, say 10K, 20K, 40K, etc. (Once compression is eliminated this is less of an issue.) Anyway, if Adam Back wanted to undertake it, a nice project would be design a good cypherpunk communications protocol. Simple, clean, and secure. It seems to me that issues like wiping the stack as every function returns, the formats of key rings, and security measures on the users computer should not be in a communications standard. Some other features: maybe a hashcash field which makes it possible to quickly weed out junk. The challenge string could be related to the key. Also, it would be neat if the system were designed with steganography in mind. How about a one time pad mode? One time pads are more practical than widely believed. Many things we talk about we *do* want to keep quiet for the rest of our natural lives. Our present tool set and practices do not do this reliably. (But, I could be persuaded that one time pad mode is actually something which should tunnel inside the cypherpunks communication protocol. Might as well keep everything clean and orthogonal.) >Piss on these assholes and their licensing fees. There's nothing wrong with paying people for their work! It's even desirable if you want tools to be available. >It was inevitable, anyway. They are a corporation after all, and the >corporations are not on "our" sides. > >I can see a scenario where government is impotent and destroyed >within 10 years. What will remain and will be harder to eradicate are >the corporations. I don't think we should rely on corporate software >whenever possible, because it always comes with an ulterior motive. I am of two minds on this question. Free software is pretty darned neat. It's extremely easy to deal with and it's nifty that you can write and release something and tens of thousands of people end up using it. If the code is simply placed in the public domain, then anybody can use it for any purpose they like. This has appeal. On the other hand, corporations can be a good way to get things done, too. It is possible that the PGP approach of giving away software was ultimately a mistake because now people don't expect to have to pay for their code. Elimination of a crypto market might be a bad thing. It's clear that going the corporate route has to be handled with some care. Given the political implications, investors have certain risks. Also, many people seem to switch into a different mode as soon as they have a company. Anything which they perceive as increasing their profits becomes good. PGP, Inc. has gone this way, we've seen First Virtual do some unsavory things, and even good old C2 has made a few people uncomfortable. It doesn't have to be this way, of course. Look at Comsec Partners. We don't see any "conversation recovery", lying press releases, or any other nonsense from them, just a beautiful product. The key probably has to do with understanding clearly what it is you want to do. If you know you want to promote privacy and free speech and are willing to volunteer a substantial amount of your time to do so, then foregoing some blood money or maintaining your integrity is a lot easier to do. What I like about selling software is that you could actually make good living by doing the right thing. And, after all, if you've spent six months writing something, why shouldn't the users kick in a little money instead of freeloading? I would like to see more crypto users in the habit of paying for tools and in the habit starting security companies. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFwdNpaWtjSmRH/5AQEBZAf+IKyhaAdUWVAYWidPAOu/qw/qiGAYB6go hxix3lOpj3RHDj87OlzzPIpY7aSbvvPOq6PkOCIecpjsO/e2F4vkXlWMtwONJ7gV azGEC//voYyvC55diSHfqUg0zOY/8Ddsy460uIDX4jWJUkJzPMRSRIfvsmo/Lpf+ HFJcIcze/w8bD2k9gelBthbIgZOpCjplY68MyPNurCcVbpKlIw/RmyX6WI4hAkYk UoRlFh4SeAmNWla4t0l3NGkpdxfVJ8tIAl6uNvV3enjjfctgm/5KRr8n7lcjLvOT jKUJn0DDFD2pdZ66Unp3xeKpOMxLZ4Bqf704piaCSmj4Erul7x1Gmg== =USz8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

ANNOUNCE: pgp5-pine 0.1
by Jeremey Barrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is to announce version 0.1 of pgp5-pine, a set of shell (sh) scripts for integrating pgp 5.x for unix into the pine mail reader. The scripts operate via pine's facility for filters, both incoming and outgoing. You can encrypt, decrypt, sign, and verify messages with some ease. The send filter will automagically retrieve keys from a keyserver if told to do so, and leans toward paranoia when it cannot encrypt a message. This is the first released version, there is always the possibility of bugs and/or behaviors you don't agree with. Note that these scripts do _not_ handle PGP/MIME, as pine does not pass the MIME structure of messages to filters. For more information, see https://www.cypherpunks.to/ Disclaimer: I am not responsible for the choice of colors on the cypherpunks.to web site, or any damage to anything yours from using this code. Please direct all bug reports, requests, or other inquiries to jeremey(a)cypherpunks.to Regards, Jeremey. - -- Jeremey Barrett jeremey(a)cypherpunks.to -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFxJmILSRssP+J/GEQKHEwCg8v+wYCumDIpYhow4+vh/bVfYploAoOkh XWe+IJGVTEj9dAFECSGuD259 =CmDv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Definition: Spin Doctoring
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Definition: Spin Doctoring You are standing naked in the gas chamber with a thousand of your fellow ethnic outlaws when the voice of Herr Himmler blares out from the speakers, "I have decided to spare your lives." The loud cheers of yourself and your grateful ethnological comrades are cut short by the sound of a deadly gas being released from the ceiling vents. A different voice comes over the speaker, saying, "What Herr Himmler _meant_ to say, was" Sick humor? Moi?

1 0

InfoWar Feedback Form #AB7-09-C3F87-%&((&%$%*
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I, the undersigned undertoad, herby express my evaluation of the TruthMonger multi-user persona, based on my understanding of the contents of Epilogue 8 of 'InfoWar'. TruthMonger should: 1. Run for President of the United States of America. [ ] ~ Y/N 2. Seek medical help immediately. [ ] ~ Y/N PLP Signature: Thanking you for your input, A Concerned Illegal Immigrant

2 1

Change in Bernstein oral argument time
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The time for the oral argument in the Bernstein case has been moved by the court from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. Hope to see you there, Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

1 0

InfoWar Epilogue 8 / TEXT
by Don't Ask... 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The True Story of the InterNet Part III InfoWar Final Frontier of the Digital Revolution Behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain by TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> Copyright 1997 Pearl Publishing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- InfoWar Table of Contents * Epilogue * TruthMonger#1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Epilogue ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Infowar circa 1850 From: nobody(a)neva.org (Neva Remailer) To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West" by Cormac McCarthy The Reverend Green had been playing to a full house daily as long as the rain had been falling and the rain had been falling for two weeks. When the kid ducked into the ratty canvas tent there was standing room along the walls, a place or two, and such a heady reek of the wet and bathless that they themselves would sally forth into the downpour now and again for fresh air before the rain drove them in again. He stood with others of his kind along the back wall. The only thing that might have distinguished him in that crowd was that he was not armed. Neighbors, said the reverend, he couldnt stay out of these here hell, hell, hellholes right here in Nacogdoches. I said to him, said: You goin to take the son of God in there with ye? And he said: Oh no. No I aint. And I said: Dont you know that he said I will foller ye always even unto the end of the road? Well, he said, I aint askin nobody to go nowheres. And I said: Neighbor, you dont need to ask. He's a goin to be there with ye ever step of the way whether ye ask it or ye dont. I said: Neighbor, you caint get shed of him. Now. Are you going to drag him, *him*, into that hellhole yonder? You ever see such a place for rain? The kid had been watching the reverend. He turned to the man who spoke. He wore long moustaches after the fashion of teamsters and he wore a widebrim hat with a low round crown. He was slightly walleyed and he was watching the kid earnestly as if he'd know his opinion about the rain. I just got here, said the kid. Well it beats all I ever seen. The kid nodded. An enormous man dressed in an oilcloth slicker had entered the tent and removed his hat. He was bald as a stone and he had no trace of beard and he had no brows to his eyes nor lashes to them. He was close on to seven feet in height and he stood smoking a cigar even in this nomadic house of God and he seemed to have removed his hat only to chase the rain from it for now he put it on again. The reverend had stopped his sermon altogether. There was no sound in the tent. All watched the man. He adjusted the hat and then pushed his way forward as far as the crateboard pulpit where the reverend stood and there he turned to address the reverend's congregation. His face was serene and strangely childlike. His hands were small. He held them out. Ladies and gentlemen I feel it my duty to inform you that the man holding this revival is an imposter. He holds no papers of divinity from any institution recognized or improvised. He is altogether devoid of the least qualifications to the office he has usurped and has only committed to memory a few passages from the good book for the purpose of lending to his fraudulent sermons some faint flavor of the piety he despises. In truth, the gentleman standing here before you posing as a minister of the Lord is not only totally illiterate but is also wanted by the law in the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Oh God, cried the reverend. Lies, lies! He began reading feverishly from his opened bible. On a variety of charges the most recent of which involved a girl of eleven years - I said eleven - who had come to him in trust and whom he was surprised in the act of violating while actually clothed in the livery of his God. A moan swept through the crowd. A lady sank to her knees. This is him, cried the reverend, sobbing. This is him. The devil. Here he stands. Let's hang the turd, called an ugly thug from the gallery to the rear. Not three weeks before this he was run out of Fort Smith Arkansas for having congress with a goat. Yes lady, that is what I said. Goat. Why damn my eyes if I wont shoot the son of a bitch, said a man rising at the far side of the tent, and drawing a pistol from his boot he leveled it and fired. The young teamster instantly produced a knife from his clothing and unseamed the tent and stepped outside into the rain. The kid followed. They ducked low and ran across the mud toward the hotel. Already gunfire was general within the tent and a dozen exits had been hacked through the canvas walls and people were pouring out, women screaming, folk stumbling, folk trampled underfoot in the mud. The kid and his friend reached the hotel gallery and wiped the water from their eyes and turned to watch. As they did so the tent began to sway and buckle and like a huge and wounded medusa it slowly settled to the ground trailing tattered canvas walls and ratty guyropes over the ground. The baldheaded man was already at the bar when they entered. On the polished wood before him were two hats and a double handful of coins. He raised his glass but not to them. They stood up to the bar and ordered whiskeys and the kid laid his money down but the barman pushed it back with his thumb and nodded. These here is on the judge, he said. They drank. The teamster set his glass down and looked at the kid or he seemed to, you couldnt be sure of his gaze. The kid looked down the bar to where the judge stood. The bar was that tall not every man could even get his elbows up on it but it came just to the judge's waist and he stood with his hands placed flatwise on the wood, leaning slightly, as if about to give another address. By now men were piling through the doorway, bleeding, covered in mud, cursing. They gathered about the judge. A posse was being drawn to pursue the preacher. Judge, how did you come to have the goods on that no-account? Goods? said the judge. When was you in Fort Smith? Fort Smith? Where did you know him to know all that stuff on him? You mean the Reverend Green? Yessir. I reckon you was in Fort Smith fore ye come out here. I was never in Fort Smith in my life. Doubt that he was. They looked from one to the other. Well where was it you run up on him? I never laid eyes on the man before today. Never even heard of him. He raised his glass and drank. There was a strange silence in the room. The men looked like mud effigies. Finally someone began to laugh. Then another. Soon they were all laughing together. Someone bought the judge a drink. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFf3Xj7jyGKQlFZpAQFAVwgAnY5GGhOnj97T7fUzmNF1fSthVoVOSLr7 8pVFBUOdTXgKGtDmlr+TqaEzkdEzxJMUE+ACA6uGb/LwmyIhxnPYwRqfhWBjOHD3 /Y1uDVan81uVAtCgIZeOxOTskoM0hE3N3qxNSiITutbM2fxZiiUH1kWTs1+JuyLp h1sfwyzV4UL4sG6fZRKdf+4Mtg7jZvOJNbjKtzp7A19zxfLuLawM6DC31OlnDduw wdSWvv3CG/rOyExeCUtD/sTunPF4a7nsRb7mZQfj564ibvhbrKFcUv/z1lo7X06I yCC4JTOshBBmkzc6PNuUGc7hRGeghoXjHw1cClGjiOlr1HDoxdVVvg== =hKGE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are What you do When it counts - The Masao ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TruthMonger#1 "Identity Theft Is the Sincerest Form of Flattery." I would be the last one to deny that those who have followed the Chronicles of InfoWar and/or my posts to the CypherPunks mailing list would be justified in concluding that I am a raving lunatic, suffering from some bizarre form of psychotic delusion which has yet to be properly researched, defined and categorized by medical science. However, please allow me to say a few words in my own defense, in the hope of giving you at least a modicum of insight into the method of my madness, and vice-versa. I have lived a life which many people would consider rather remarkable and, in some aspects, rather unbelievable, as well. {In reality, 'unusual' is probably a more fitting, though mundane, description.} In order to impress upon you that I am not consciously or (too) subconsciously attempting to pretentiously portray (or inwardly deem) myself as some kind of eminent, all-wise, all-seeing guru or genius at the expense of the individual uniqueness, talents and value of others, such as yourself, let me state that I truly recognize, even in my moments of cynicism, egoism, or a plethora of other human states of consciousness and being, that what I regard as the absolute wonderment of my own life is no less remarkable than that of each and every other being sharing this corporeal and metaphysical existence with me. If I were able to single handedly bring about world-peace upon the earth tomorrow, heal all of the sick and lame, and make life a proverbial bowl of cherries for all humankind, I would still regard myself as no more remarkable than any man or woman who is capable of bringing new life into this world. Anyone who has ever been present at the birth of a child is likely to understand that I am speaking of the folly of our pretensions and our posturing, in the face of the genuine mystery of creation. Having said this, let me proceed to attempt to elucidate the reasons for the sincerity I strive for in writing, no matter how 'right' or 'wrong' I may be in my beliefs, values and world-view. I was very young as a child OK, seriously The expression "been there, done that, got the T-shirt" applies to each and every one of us in our own way. My life has been a process of going everywhere, doing everything, seeing and experiencing an amazing variety of the reality-bytes that life has to offer. Many whom I have come in contact with, who have 'settled down' to live a life very similar to that of their family, friends and neighbors, find me to be an interesting fascinating 'character.' What many of them do not fully realize is that I find them to be equally fascinating. Despite the wild, far-ranging roller coaster of life I have experienced, I recognize that it is in no way more reality-encompassing than the life of someone who has borne and raised a child, or children, or who have dedicated their life to the pursuit of total understanding of minute area of the total scheme of reality. I have sometimes been involved in conversations with people who pour out their woes, their self-doubts, their regrets of 'roads not taken,' etc., and I have said, in reply, "You have raised a wonderful child. You, and everyone else who has done so deserve a Pulitzer Prize. No one on the face of the earth, however renowned, has ever done anything which is superior to what you have accomplished." Everyone has things that they have the background and ability to do and corresponding life lessons and experience that they have to share with their fellow terrestrial travelers. What I believe I have to share is the perceptive viewpoint of someone who has garnered a reasonably objective outlook on the life and society around them, as a result of having always stood slightly outside the boundaries of whatever situational reality they were interacting with at any point in time. To illustrate, allow me to point out that I have been through "The End of the World" twice, in my lifetime to date. The first time was as a baptized member of Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. (I am not only Washed In The Blood Of The Lamb, but I also scrubbed behind my ears-mom would be proud of me.) One of the reasons I still regard the members of the WWCOG very highly is that during my stay in the church I suffered very little discrimination or judgment as a result of being vastly different from almost all other members of the church, in ways that would have resulted, as a member of most organizations (religious or secular), in my being the target of coercive attempts at 'changing me for the better', or [Your Example of Infringement of One's Right To Self-Determination Here]. Hard to believe that hard-core Christians could be this liberal (Example # 6): "We would rather that you didn't strip naked during church services, paint yourself blue and stand on your head while chanting 'Allah is goodAllah is great. Hopefully, further Bible study will lead you to understand that these actions are not necessary for spiritual development. But, hey! We could be wrong." While you may be chuckling at my humorous representation of what I am explaining, here, let me assure you that this tongue in cheek example is no more outlandish than 'the real facts.' When "The End of the World" was announced, church members made preparations for holing up on the specified date, having a fantastic 'last meal' and preparing for a final night of fellowship during which most 'masks' would be dropped (being as how the last day before the end of all physical existence doesn't lend itself to being pretentious in the hope of receiving future benefit from misleading yourself and others). {FYI: Yes, I was tempted to make the obvious "going out with a bang <nod-nod, wink-wink>" suggestions, all in good humor, but this was one of the few times in my life that I was able to resist my basic urge to be infantile and immature.} After the WWCOG members, including myself, awoke the next morning to find that it still hurt when they pinched their arm, so this couldn't possibly be Heaven , the church went through a major shake-up, with many members becoming disillusioned and leaving for browner pastures. Most of those who remained in the church went through great mental and emotional turmoil in the process of resolving the dichotomy of remaining a member of a 'True Church' which had failed the ultimate test of 'infallibility'. Not me This is part and parcel of what I am trying to explain as an example of what I regard as an ability on my part to exercise a great deal of objectivity, even during my active participation in entering into membership in a particular or specific belief-system. I never, at any time, believed that the proverbial "End of the World" was imminent. Quite the opposite, in fact, yet I participated fully in the event. Why? When you are a member of a bowling team, you bowl ten frames because that is what you are there to do, as a member of the team. That is how those involved keep score and the agreed basis upon which they judge the results. I made no attempt to burst anyone else's bubble while preparing for an event which I was certain would not occur but, when asked by other church members, I did not attempt to obfuscate my beliefs in this regard, instead speaking honestly about my view that the person reading the road map of the future was not aware of the concept of magnetic deflection affecting the perception of True North. On the other hand, neither did I negate the possibility that I might, at the appointed time, be proven wrong, as I found myself swept up into Heaven , to be confronted by a Supreme Being who was wagging a finger at me, saying, "You are going to find your eternal stay in Heaven considerably more enjoyable if you drop the cynicism." As a result of having the objectivity which comes from being what I characterize as "an insider watching from the outside," I found that I could observe or participate in the debates between the 'True Believers' and the 'Disillusioned' and manage to separate the wheat from the chaff, chiefly because I didn't have a 'position to defend.' i.e.-I hadn't given away my bowling ball (metaphorically speaking) to charity, out of certitude that I would not be needing it the following day, so I had no need to 'place blame' on anyone for my having to buy a new bowling ball for the upcoming tournament. Although I ceased actively participating in the WWCOG shortly after The End of the World , it was a result of having already learned and experienced most of those things which I was there to apperceive. In the wake of the World inconsiderately failing to End on schedule, the titular heads of the Worldwide Church of God rechecked their figures and, sure enough, realized that they had forgotten to 'carry the three' and that it had been a mistake to use the recently legislated value of pi (3.0) in their calculations. I found this to be very disturbing. I personally had absolutely no problem with the World failing to End as predicted, nor with those who had mistakenly (as it turned out) made the prediction. My beliefs and core values were neither strengthened nor weakened by the details of the event-I am proud to say that I felt no need to paint myself 'green' instead of 'blue' thereafter, in an attempt to rebuild a non-existent ivory tower of religious/spiritual belief. Had those involved not busied themselves with attempting to pretend that they were still infallible, but bad at math, my sojourn in the Worldwide Church of God would have undoubtedly lasted a little longer. As it was, I felt that there were more precipitous routes to additional knowledge and learning, since advancement of corporal and ethereal cognitive capabilities had been put on hold in the church in the interests of regeneration of structures which were not truly necessary to the objectives of religious spirituality. To tell the truth, I find it rather ironic that intelligent, spiritually oriented individuals who recognize the foolishness of worshipping golden calves often fail to recognize that the 'semi-worshipping' of 'wooden' calves may be a step forward, but is equally foolish, nonetheless. My participation in the second (non-annual) "End of the World" was as a member of the Institute of Applied Metaphysics. The event/process was very similar in concept to the WWCOG "End of the World" , with only the circumstantial details being significantly different. i.e. - As a member of IAM, I stripped naked, painted my self purple, and stood on my head during the meetings, conferences and classes. Once again, those involved in "The End of the World" awoke the next morning to find that it still hurt when they pinched their arm (or when I pinched their butt). Again, there was a certain amount of disillusionment in the wake of continued corporeal existence, but less so than in the WWCOG, since there was less of a structured, ritual schematization involved. i.e. - more people wearing jeans, fewer people wearing suits and ties I eventually moved on to a divergent path in my quest toward finding new and better ways to investigate the underlying unity within the boundaries of diversity, once again taking along the lessons and experiences I had garnered during my hiatus from constant motion (as opposed to fleeing from the abomination of human fallibility). The wake of this second failure of the World to End according to schedule was of lesser amplitude than the previous one I had participated in, rocking the boat of established position/beliefs less than before. I attribute this to the fact that the response of the titular heads of the Institute of Applied Metaphysics was not to 'deny' that there had been no failure, only a slight miscalculation (PolitiSpeak), but was, instead, to 'reveal' to the participants that the world had, in fact, come to an end, exactly as predicted. The 'loophole' that validated this Nostradamian spin-doctoring was that the precise wording of the original prediction was "the world AS WE KNOW IT will come to an end." {Petty and cynical way to have fun with 'voices pontificating in the wilderness' when they are so foolish as to give a date and time to their "End of the World" prediction: Ask them if the time quoted is Eastern Time, Pacific Time, or Greenwich Mean Time. NostraCanadaIsis: "The 'End of the World' will be at 9:00 p.m. (9:30 p.m. in Newfoundland). Definition: Spin Doctoring - You are standing naked in the gas chamber with a thousand of your fellow ethnic outlaws when the voice of Herr Himmler blares out from the speakers, "I have decided to spare your lives." The loud cheers of yourself and your grateful ethnological comrades are cut short by the sound of a deadly gas being released from the ceiling vents. A different voice comes over the speaker, saying, "What Herr Himmler meant to say, was" Sick humor? Moi? The two examples above involve group participation events which are synchronous with individual examples of 'what I do.' Everyone has things which they 'do'. What I am speaking of here is something which I believe most people inherently understand, but which is difficult to put into words. i.e. - I can only describe my understanding of the concept I am expressing, in the hope that you can compare and interpret what I say in the light of your own knowledge and experience, be it a translation of what I say into a mathematical equation, an emotional feeling, a graphical representation, or whatever What some people do is to live a life of optimism which drives cynical people crazy, particularly in light of the fact that the history of events in the optimist's life confirms that his or her world-view is valid. What other people do is live a life of cynicism which drives optimists crazy, in light of the fact that the cynic's observations and logic are irrefutable, thus forcing the optimist to face the fact that life is not a bowl of cherries for those whose destiny is not to reflect the benefits of the power of positive thinking but, rather, the reality that life is a crap shoot. i.e. <squared> - Some people always find a parking space exactly where they need one, and other people never find a parking space in the needed spot. The "End of the World" is something that I do. 'Participate in' might equally describe what I refer to as 'something I do', if viewed from the perspective of the interplay between myself and others. To explain, on a one-on-one level of individuality, what I am speaking of, I should explain that, on occasion, people I know, vaguely know, or don't know from Adam, will show up on my doorstep, and spend time with me. A total stranger sometimes shows up on my doorstep and, without a word of explanation, spends several days helping me install a new carpet, trim my hedges, or whatever I happen to be involved in at the time. All without saying a word before departing at some point, never to cross my path again before making their exit from this mortal plane. Or, they may show up and sit in my living room for an hour, a day, a week, and tell me their life story. "I was very young, as a childthen, this morning" Once again, after they have done whatever it is they needed to do, they depart. The common link between the people who enter my life to perform variations upon the above themes, before moving on, is that they die a short time later. What is the 'explanation of'/'reason for' the process I have just described? I have some opinions and/or theories in this regard, but the bottom line is that it does not matter in the least whether I am correct or incorrect in this regard. The bottom line is that it is something that I do/'participate in' and experience has taught me that if I try to interpret the 'true meaning and purpose' of these events, thereby convincing myself that I have some imagined 'cause of action' by which I can control/influence the 'outcome' of the event in a 'proper' manner, everything goes to hell and takes longer than it would have if I had resisted the impulse to control/interfere. At this point, I would like to point out that many people might regard the preceding as what Tim May refers to as 'magical thinking' and that they would, in a certain sense, be right. Tim May has, in more than a few missives, indicated his disapproval of those who engage in the 'airy-fairy' process of 'magical thinking,' in contradiction to the known physical laws of reality. I have long regarded Tim May as the original Philosopher King of the CypherPunks mailing list, and I give considerable weight to his missives, knowing that they are, for the most part, composed in a process which involves careful thought and analysis of the issues or technicalities of whatever topic that his missive is addressing. If my first reading of his post to the CypherPunks list seems to indicate that he is simply 'on the rag' and 'blowing smoke,' then I read the post again to see if I am correct in the assumption that he is having a 'bad hair day,' or if I have my head up my butt and I am failing to understand what Tim is attempting to communicate. Tim May sometimes comes off, in the context of the not-totally-encompassing-media of InterNet communication, as a bit of a Redneck/Ugly-American/Materialistically-Grounded/Fuck-the-Hippie-Crystal-Worshipers kind of guy. i.e. - Nuke Magical Thinkers However, I think he would be surprised, given my above claims, to find that I agree with him, for the most part-listen closely-within the context of his definition of 'magical thinking.' However, 'magical thinking' is something that I do, and I believe that it is valid from within the context of my definition of what the term truly comprises. i.e. - I care not in the least whether you (or I) claim that it is possible to 'psychically will' the balance of a bank account to increase by $100.00. My view is that this-or-that claim doesn't matter in the least. What matters is whether the bank account does or does not increase. What I am getting at is that, as a mathematician, the certitude of what you recognize and accept is not dependent on my mathematical ability to understand the concepts which you know and understand. My belief that 1 + 1 = 3 is not likely to cause you to come to the belief that your whole life is a lie, and that you should kill yourself. Why is this? Because mathematics is something that you do. Likewise, metaphysics is something that I do. What I implore you to understand is that I have no more personal, emotional investment in a blue aura meaning 'this' as opposed to 'that', than you, as a mathematician, have in 1 + 1 = 2, as opposed to 1 + 1 = 3. Your concern as a mathematician is that the value you recognize is valid within the boundaries of the logic system within which you are working. My concern as a metaphysician is the same. In effect, what I am saying is that people, be they friends, acquaintances or total strangers, show up on my doorstep and do whatever it is they need to do before departing and going off to reunite with the Spirit of the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever. You don't understand? Me neither Do you believe or disbelieve what I am telling you? Do you think it is a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing, if true? Do you think it is the work of God, or the work of the Devil? Pick 'one from Column A and two from Column B', or vice-versa-it's fine by me. Regardless of your or my belief/disbelief, attitude or opinionit happens. If you feel the urge to show up on my doorstep and spend the next few decades helping to prove or disprove what I perceive as reality, feel free to do so, but I believe that there are probably much better ways to spend your time. I guess what I am haphazardly attempting to explain is my view of what objectivity truly means, insofar as I understand the concept and strive to arrive at an objective, truthful perception of existence, during my journey through 'madness cleverly disguised as sanity' (or vice-versa). Non-Taoists often perceive those who are journeying in a direction opposite to, or tangent to, their own vector of impetus as being 'in opposition to' themselves. >From a Taoist perspective, however, no one is truly 'going the wrong way.' In effect, it is as if we live in a world where traveling both North and South are required for survival/enlightenment/whatever. Those who are dimly aware that they are traveling North after having already fulfilled the 'traveling South' part of the equation, are likely to subconsciously recognize that those traveling in the opposite direction may be doing so because have already fulfilled the 'traveling North' part of the equation. Those who have not yet traversed the opposite side of the equation are more likely to believe that those traveling in the opposite direction are 'evil incarnate', actively seeking to subvert the will of the OneWay True God who rules the 'Turn Left To Go Towards Righteousness' universe. I believe that it might help to clarify the concept I am attempting to express here if I ask you to think of examples from your own life, and from the lives of others you have observed, which might serve to illustrate people who unthinkingly shout "You are going the wrong way!" to total strangers when, in fact, they have no idea where the person they are shouting at is coming from, or going to. A parallax example would be a mature person trying to impose the logic of grownup reasoning on a teenager who is firmly ensconced in the hormonal grip of a still-growing movement toward balancing reason and emotion. The value that our experience and understanding can play in communicating with others is directly related to the degree to which we have recognized, faced and resolved those events and situations in our life that require us to strike a balance between order and chaos, individuality and communion with the 'other', stability and evolution-Yin and Yang. Obtuse Parallax Non-Involvement Participation Theory: The fact that life is a crap shoot in no way detracts from the validity of 'self-determination through the exercise of free will' playing an essential part in determining the final outcome of the unfolding of our predestination. {Pretty profound, eh? I wonder if it actually means anything} But, seriouslyI was very young as a child OK, I'll quit kidding around. (Honest!) Despite the extremely multitudinous verbal effusions which I often use to convey my understanding of life's realities and peculiarities, much of what my preceding voluminous asseverations are aimed toward communicating can be summed up in a two-line poem which was written by an eccentric schizoid component of my overall persona which lurks omnipresently behind the scar tissue on the periphery of my brain, as the result of a failed lobotomy attempt by a well-meaning, but misguided, member of the Manson family. "All My Lies Are True" All my lies are true And everything I do, I really am. In short (but time-and-volume expanded to give you the benefit of enlightenment through overcoming the confusion of my verbal obtuseness), there exists-in the heart of the time-space continuum that is conspiring with extemporaneous metaphysical actuality to bring us all to a sorry end-two separate and distinct enemies of the current direction and goals of our lifelong aspirations. The first enemy is whatever runs contrary to our beliefs, aims and purpose in life, and which threatens our existence/being/survival because of our failure to recognize its value in our life, due to the fact that it encompasses arenas of life which we have not yet had occasion to confront and/or experience. The second enemy is the 'friendly enemy' which represents those arenas of life which we have already traversed, and which constitute a hazard to the evolution of our consciousness only by virtue of the fact that it is always tempting to bathe in the glory of treading familiar ground, deluding ourselves that our competence in rehashing already-learned lessons in life is a sign of superiority to those poor souls we pass by as they stumble and fall in their evolutionary journey through unfamiliar territory. For those of you who have consumed less than a quart of Scotch in the last half-hour, and are thus mystified as to what I am talking about, here, I will point out that what I have just expressed might be considered to be the equivalent of those who teach second-grade math indulging themselves in the bizarre and obscene delusion that the godlike reverence which the six and seven year old children impute to them as a result of their superior understanding of the mysteries of multiplication is somehow reflective of their innate superiority to the entirety of humanity around them. Or, as a parallax example, a school yard bully who considers himself to be a 'tough guy', despite the fact that he is six-foot eight, two hundred and forty five pounds, forty three years of age, and is still in the third grade. [No, asshole, this example is not based on my own life experience.] As you may have already guessed, I have pretty much lost track of what the hell it is I had originally intended to communicate in this duplicitous soliloquy concerning the divine triad of incremental quaternion. So perhaps it is best that I toss my Thesaurus in the trash and entrust to my limited lexicon the responsibility of conveying an important, though insipid, axiom of life which should serve as an shining beacon which has the capacity to enlighten the waters beyond the rocky shores of my limited attention span, and open the door to a complete understanding of how to properly interpret and evaluate the Chronicles of InfoWar. In other words-in plain English-articulating my unknown thoughts in a manner which accurately expresses my lack of social skills and my disposition toward not really giving a fat rat's ass if my efforts at elocution are appreciated, or whether I am just pissing in the wind I am the living, breathing incarnation of the Jules Pfiefer elucidation of the "Mad Dog in possession of the last false smile." I AM the TruthMonger. If you think that my irreverence, sick humor, and my propensity toward expressing myself in a manner which will lead those reading my mad ramblings to conclude that I am an uncouth, insane asshole is an indication that I am not totally sincere in seeking to share the enlightenment that it has been my blessing to experience during the course of my life, then Fuck You! We are all born into a predestined domain wherein our role as a warrior is to fight the battles which can be waged by none other than ourselves. My predestined battle is to rail loud and long against the anal-retentive scourge of counterfeit substantiality which we and our fellow anthropological sycophants kneel in obeisance to, for lack of true belief in the primacy of our sovereign franchise which not only deems us to be the captain of our ship of life and master of our ultimate destiny, but which also demands that we recognize our divinity and our obligation to throw off the bondage of outside authority, accepting total responsibility for living our life according to the dictates of our conscience and our innate soul pattern. "To he who does what within him lies, God will not deny his grace." - Saint Thomas Aquinas "We make our Gods, do battle with them, and they bless us." - Herman Hesse "All my lies are TruthMongering." - The Last Canadian Outlaw ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" "InfoWar (Part III of 'The True Story of the InterNet') Soviet Union Sickle of Eunuchs Secret WebSite ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

InfoWar Epilogue 8 (Part III of 'The True Story of the InterNet')
by Don't Ask... 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

PGP 5.0 international patches and hacks
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A new resource page is up on the cypherpunks.to web site, to host various patches and hacks to the pgp 5.0i source. Currently a patch which fixes the expiration date for the software and "Version" comment in ASCII-armored messages is available. For more, visit https://www.cypherpunks.to/ -- pgp5hacks(a)cypherpunks.to

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Warmaking is ever changing in response to the last wins and losses. However, winners are less likely to change than losers, for why change a successful formula, publish it, or a well-spun dissimulation. As ever, unknown forms of war are in gestation, being tested and debriefed, in military institutions and wargames, in business, in education, in the amorphous culture at large through legal competition and crime and their variable gray areas where fair and unfair, civilized rules and their breaking, are ever in grim and vicious dispute. While there are piles of studies on organized and guerilla wars of the past, the most provocative are those that attempt to describe what's coming, how to recognize its early warnings and what can be done to head it off or, more likely, advance it. The highest warmaking art is winning without physical fighting, to outfox the enemy by demoralizing, by demonstrating that attack is futle, that there is no chance of defeating a superior force. That's why military exhibitionism and psy war is reputed among military and political leaders to be as vital as that of brute force, as best exemplified by the Cold War 50-year stalemate and psychological "win-win" to a status of Cool War. To get a handle on what's in store, imagine that completely unbelievable methods of warfare, overt and covert, are being concocted now, composed of strategies, tactics, warfighters and armaments never before used -- and will not be revealed and understood until too late for defense. Try to forget everything you know about warfighting, crime fighting, conflict resolution, rules of engagement, black operations, guerilla tactics, hiding among the people. Assume the enemy knows everything you know and more, is better armed and smarter than you, has more spies among your supporters and in your most intimate circle. Imagine that your toilet, your bed, your fridge, your car, your is triggered to explode by radio or your computer by your password. Consider that there will be no time to reflect and reconsider when things go catastrophically wrong and the enemy is unrelenting attacking with inhuman viciousness, when you're defenses are crumbling and weapons failing, when mates are squealing, dead or run away, when you can't stop shitting yourself, when your legs are buckling, when your minds racing out of control, when you're begging god and mom for mercy and the upraised axe is descending, the barrel back of head is firing. Remember that who the enemy is is no secret to either side, on whichever side you're on, and presume that the emeny is more ready and able to cook your goose than you are theirs. What actual war carnage teaches, what the current civil war in the US is showing, is what the TV-sofa war does not: nobody wins, ever, except the mindfuckers who've never gone berzerk in combat or in the jobplace, killed friend and foe to save own asses. You only win wars by never having to fight them, those started by weakling cowards unable to steal, cheat and lie well enough to satisfy their demonic lusts. Best to outsmart the enemy in war, work and love, so that what you're up to is revealed only years later if ever. For the best won wars are never known at the time, no parades, no medals, no glory, no war stories, no memorial cemeteries and monuments, no veteran hospitals filled with carrion, just peace and tranquility shooting deer, harpooning dolpins, rip-tearing the landscape for profligate cowboy wargames riding homicidal freeways. We're all gonna lose our civil war in market place killings and road rage, thanks to today's warfighting lesson in free fire criminal enterprise by those who've never been shot and shot and shot, and lost for good -- the vainglorious winners, the losers desperate to regain glory days.

1 0

re: Speech as co-conspiring? I don't think so.
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >Since when is broadcasting a radio or television show or writing an >essay evidence of complicity in a murder, even when it "pushes >someone over the line"? The producers of the show had better hope that it is not evidence of complicity in a murder. Let's say Tim is crazy.(*) He told us how much he enjoyed seeing the BATF agent take one in the face. If this were to inspire him to try the same thing in real life, how would the producers of the show be less guilty than the talk show host? After all, the most intense and graphic aspect of the episode was the scene where the BATF agent was killed. The people who made the show obviously intended this to have the most impact. It must be the actual point of the show. (It's well known that television watchers are far more responsive to imagery than boring dialogue.) The rest was obviously a cynical attempt to undermine the machinery of justice by appearing to be on the side of law enforcement. Bad People try this trick all the time. Fortunately, the jury usually isn't fooled. I'm looking forward to the miscreants getting the justice they so richly deserve, aren't you? (*) Tim seems too wiley to be crazy. Instead, he seems to be playing The Most Dangerous Game: Fed baiting. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFwn1JaWtjSmRH/5AQEuYwf8DRGHHp1C2uaecJ87tVjE8gSQJNJJUJMA Z0uX+xjse7RSvlcszCZ1/tU0R9IY5iw1uXV9GqDK3JY/mSEKznd994cTo0PfO5PP sgOIJq42ynz9q7eguqsE1I591hhNdhKE1mitPMirvm5Rh2Rwic1veiJMEc3uaHP+ SEiit3LcmqoV9xZ57oxuMRhHr63KQ24HaKDZkSnIIxC6c+8RiJ0pDy94hL15e/GQ O3Yw/M5vZ/CfKYDgQbMzfavbV9QPszgSYg944HinBgWIuo+JbV13eypmLXDw7yxI WlA8Zxt5NNba4sQCe17m0Drxf9e99fX+inIVYKONK3kH2oCF564Hag== =49tL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Japan's Constitution and GAK (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Adam Shostack <adam(a)homeport.org> > Subject: Japan's Constitution and GAK > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 02:16:36 -0500 (EST) > Does someone have access to a verificable copy of Japan's > Constitution? Someone pointed me to one on the web, which would seem > to make difficult implemmenting international GAK systems. > > http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wtp/japan.html > > Article 21. Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, > press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. No censorship > shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of > communication be violated. It also outlaws secret or under-cover police such as the Kempetei (or however you spell it, too lazy to look it up). ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: 2 Nov 1997 05:47:36 -0000 > From: Secret Squirrel <nobody(a)secret.squirrel.owl.de> > Subject: Re: democracy?! (Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd) > Adam Back wrote: > >[Ed Note: Jim Choate wrote:] > >> At the height of the range wars there were only 9 murders > >> associated with the conflict, not hundreds as the popular > >> entertainment media and spin-doctor culture would have you > >> believe. Get your fucking facts straight. > > > >I know, that was my point; recall that I said the murder rate was > >low. The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling > >their neighbours what they could think. > > It's not hard to believe that this was the case in some places and in > some times, but a term like the "Wild West" covers a lot of time and > territory. It was the case in all places. The Wild West simply wasn't that wild. > For example, in San Francisco in the early 1860s there was a very high > murder rate, something like 1000 people were killed in one year and > nobody was convicted. (Forgive minor factual errors as I haven't > studied this in awhile.) Damn, I have this book - but not here, at my shop apparently - that was written by a eastern newspaper report who was in California, to write the book, and he described San Francisco in the 1800's during the first gold rushes. He doesn't note significant violence. What really makes the book interesting is that the reporter took the 'long way' to California - across Panama via coastal steamers and such. Very interesting descriptions. I'll make note and get the book next time I'm out there and post to the list for review. Would you happen to remember your source? Nothing I have read has ever mentioned a 1000/year homicide count in San Francisco - ever. > I have also read reports of substantial > violence in the mining communities of Nevada and California with > minimal enforcement action taken. That's interesting since this is a specific and commen example of free market anarchy supporters, the low violence rates in the Cali. gold fields during the rush. In particular J.D. Davidson & Lord W. Rees-Mogg go to great lengths at a couple of places in their book "The Sovereign Individual" to hold it us as a 'model anarchy'. Me thinks something is going on here below the covers when both sides of the discussion use the same example (which is why I intentionaly don't use it but wait for others to bring it up). > It seems likely to me that the low > murder rate claim has some exceptions, even if we ignore the mutual > atrocities between various native groups, Americans, and Mexicans. If you read "My Life as a Indian" this might change your view of how it was in that period. "The Texas Rangers" also has quite a lot to say about what the Indian wars were like in Texas (not really since there really wasn't much). It is interesting to note that when the cattle drives started in the 1800's the people oppossed didn't pick up a gun and fight as a rule, they hired lawyers and sued the cattle owners for damages to their farms and ranches. This one was one of the primary forces behind the closing of the fronteir - putting up barbed wire - the cattle barons kept losing the cases. > I would also like to see how pervasive the temperance movement was in > the Wild West. By the late nineteenth century my impression is that > it was going strong in the Wild West although it possibly hadn't > grasped the levers of power yet. Let us know how your research goes. > >> Face off's at high-noon simply didn't happen and poeple didn't run > >> around having gun fights all the time. > > > >Right! > > I'm pretty sure there were gunfights, but that they happened a lot > more quickly and a lot less formally than we see on TV. But, I could > believe that overall they happened infrequently. Anybody have a > reference? See above books as well as the Time*Life series I mentioned in a previous submission. I would wager that from 1800 to 1900 there were less than a dozen face-to-face shoot-outs at high-noon, if any at all. There is also a very good book that covers the French and Spanish explorations of the southwest starting in the late 1500's up to the early 1800's when they were either forced out by political agreements or force. I believe the University of New Mexico puts it out. If I stumble across it (I'll keep an eye out for it) I'll get identifiying info. Very good book, but a mother to read. > I am told that knife fighting was a lot more common than is widely > known. A lot of poor runaways showed up to work in various mining > towns and they were unable to afford expensive toys like guns. Generaly people shot each other with rifles from a distance or back-shots. But the fact is that most, stats put it as high as 60%, of all homicides (accidental or intentional) were people shooting themselves with their own weapon by accident. These sorts of incidents were clearly much higher than Indians or homicide. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Clinton's Bigger Gun Ban
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/97 8:08 PM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: >The Klinton Klan has already effectively banned imported SKS ammo >(7.62x29, as I recall, given that I don't have any rifles >chambering this popular round). > --- >Before you rush to correct me, I _meant_ to write "7.62x39" of >course. > >(A round used by the Chinese, Soviet, and East Bloc nations, and >roughly equivalent to the American M-16 round, known either as the >.223 or 5.56mm. The NATO "7.62" is in a longer case length. >7.62x54, as I recall. Known in America as .308. If I remember right they were able to do this because the only ammo available for 7.62x39 is from the Chinese and uses steel core projectiles not lead. Then when Olympic Arms came out with the cutdown weapon chambered for 7.62x39 it was able to be banned uder a regualtion banning "armor piercing ammo that could be used in a handgun." One thing though, 7.62x39 really could not be compared to the 5.56 NATO, its really more potent out to 2-300 meters; it is still a .30 cal vs 5.56 NATOs .223, but its far less potent than 7.62 NATO (7.62x54). The 7.62x39 was the standard caliber of ComBloc weapons for several decades, most specifically the AK-47, AKM-44 (sniper weapon), and SKS carbine. I think the Dragunov sniper system used a more potent cartridge. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFyiGMdZgC62U/gIEQJ62gCfbBu3uY42gRThKwxyi1I/uDm6pAwAoMkl GuTW74QapGZbXo/kGN4KokYM =qkl4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Bacon and eggs: A days work for a chicken; a lifetime commitment for a pig"

3 2

auto signing messages Re: perl from Amad3us
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> #!/usr/local/bin/perl > $userID="cypherpunks\(a)algebra.com"; > $pgp="/usr/local/bin/pgp"; > $tmp="/tmp/.sig$$"; > undef($/); > $post = <STDIN>; > ($headers,@body) = split(/\n\n/,$post);$body = join("\n\n",@body); > open(PIPE,"|$pgp -satf +batchmode +verbose=0 -u $userID > $tmp"); Real paranoiacs don't put temporary files in world-writeable directories. If a hostile user symlinks your majordomo binary (or something) to /tmp/.sig999 you're going to overwrite it with garbage. A single purpose directory /tmp/mdsig writeable only by the list account 'majordom' would be my preference. (Correct owner and mode for this directory and parents could be checked by the perl script before it decides to write there.) -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

1 0