December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: VISA Travel Money
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > I'm also skeptical of these "VISA Travel Money" cards. That is, they don't > seem to be too useful for anything. They are usefull for the one purpose for which they are designed. One can go off to a foreign country and obtain cash as required without having to pay often usurous fees from bureaux de change. Just because you are supposed to be able to use travel cheques as cash does not mean that you really can. > After all, cash works well. (It's rarely stolen, in my experience, or at > least this is not a major concern. Traveller's checks work well, and can be > "cashed" into the local currency. ATM machines fill the same function these > "VISA Travel Money" cards apparently do; at least when I was in Europe the > last time this is what I used, and my French francs were as untraceable as > could be. > > As I see it, yet another marketing solution looking for a problem. Its not a major VISA product but it is reasonably usefull. Its more convenient to carry a card than cash. If one gets mugged or looses the card there is a way of recovering the cash (sometimes). I don't think that there would be much use for such cards in the tourist belt but you might well want to have one if you were going on a trip to the hinterlands of a country. For most people VISA travel cheques or a cash advance is likely to be more usefull. > A real step would be a true privacy card, a card issued in a jurisdiction > unfriendly to U.S. investigators and offering various transaction-blinding > options. I have to wonder what pressures have been put on the major credit > card companies... See the Stored Value Card work that VISA have been working on, or MONDEX. MONDEX has almost every feature you would want from anonymous cash except you can't prove its anonymous. You can do purse to purse transfers however. Its a different level of privacy to that of e-cash. e-cash provides only purchaser unlinkability and its an online scheme. MONDEX makes it possible to trace certain withdrawal and deposit patterns of a user but little else. Phill

4 3

Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:48 AM 8/3/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Stop the presses -- the other shoe didn't drop. Despite a flurry of >last-minute hyperbole, the House passed an anti-terrorism bill this >afternoon without the ominous encryption or wiretap provisions. Now >the bill lies in the lap of the Senate, which probably will approve it >later today or tomorrow before they leave town for the August recess. I agree. And I think we should thank CDT, EFF, the ACLU, and (gasp) the NRA for ensuring that martial law provisions did not get slipped in during the rush to get out of Washington for the recess. (And maybe other groups...I don't follow all the politics.) I'm watching Rep. Bob Barr (R) on "Larry King Live," on CNN. He makes a lot of sense, and keeps coming back to civil liberties, the alliance between the ACLU and the NRA on this one, etc. His adversary, Rep. John Conyers (D) is calling for stronger measures, for the need to "do something." (I thought the Democrats nominally stood for certain types of civil liberties? Not that I ever was fooled by them, but this is the public personna they present.) >The Net owes its thanks to the House Republicans for stopping these >fool Dems in a fine backroom political maneuver late last night. By the way, my blasting of Sen. Dianne Feinstein as "Fineswine," "Swinestein," etc. (names not original with me, of course) is heartfelt. I don't mine dealing with opponents, even articulate enemies of freedom. But Feinstein is a halfwit and a hypocrite. A San Francisco society lady masquerading as a senator. She's proof that transmigration of souls is real, being the incarnation of Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat cake." --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:10 AM 8/3/96, Jim Choate wrote: >True enough, but not the whole story. If a dog or cat is kept well and fed >good quality food they live 10+ years. The average life of an animal on the >street is between 2-5 years. As to people, we now live around 75-80 years, >prior to all these rules and regulations on food and such the average was >20-25. If we go back to what you propose you would be dead a long time ago. Hardly a proved correlation. A lot of other factors come into play. But never mind. No point arguing. ... >I personaly find it reassuring that some bunch of knuckle-heads are unable >to start a chip making facility like you support. The thought of finding >flourine compounds in the local river (where I get my tap water) or simply >dumped in the air is a little unsettling. Just because some group of bozo's >want to start a business is not sufficient justification for that to be >allowed. A straw man. There is is no evidence that these startup companies are dumping stuff in rivers. Jeesh. The point is that large companies learn how to keep large staffs employed filling out paperwork, and they actually have come to see it is a good way to keep small companies from forming. >It seems to me that many of the folks who recognize downsized workers pleas >for their 'right to a job' as so much bunk are at the same time supporting a >businesses right to start up. A pretty humorous double standard. Not at all comparable. >I have never heard of anyone being arrested for giving away food, only >selling it without a license. I bet the Salvation Army soup kitchen would be >worried if this claim were true (they aren't and it ain't). Then you weren't reading the thread, which in several posts described this very situation. "Food Not Bombs" was giving away soup, chile, and other such stuff at a park in Santa Cruz (and maybe elsewhere, e.g., San Francisco). They were busted. Now do you understand the situation? --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an aircraft. Transponders will be affixed to all items of luggage and all passengers. If the system discovers a transponder on the luggage in the cargo hold without the corresponding transponder on the passenger on board, an alarm will sound. I am not making this up. As many of you know, I have long predicted subcutaneous transponders to become widely deployed in the near future. First for child identification and monitoring of criminals, then, as the children grow up, as universal ID, driver license, proof of eligibility for employment, PIN substitute, etc. Today, we moved a step closer to this future. [Note that the transponders will have to be affixed to the passenger. An example would be a hospital style bracelet that stops working when removed. Why embedding the transponder in a hand carried item, such as a card, will not work is left as an exercise to the reader. Even an affixed device does not provide perfect security. You'd really have to embed the transponder in the body at an early age to make removal nearly impossible.] -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:36:02 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS > > A most distastful example is the complicit silence of gun stores > when the gun grabbers regulate "kitchen table" gun dealers out of > economic existance. Funny, one of my customers is involved in the Texas gun lobby and through him I am aware of literaly hundreds of people who are within a few miles of Austin who have FFL's and have no problem selling weapons off their kitchen table completely legal. Their prices in general are much lower than local stores such as McBrides (the best known in Austin). Jim Choate

1 0

Re: More evidence that democracy is bunk
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:11 8/2/96, Deranged Mutant wrote: >If they were asked if they minded random searches of their bags and >belongings or required to carry photo-ID wherever they went, to be >presented on demand, would they still be willing? You bet. I remember a war on drugs releated poll from a few years back in which a majority supported warrantless searches of their homes. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

3 2

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:50 8/2/96, Paul J. Bell wrote: >i, for one, and perhaps others on the list as well, would be interested in >hearing >what you mean when you say, "At&t, Microsoft, etc) who are ripping people >off on a >daily basis". > >for example, in what way is AT&T ripping people off? and what about >microsoft? Its up to you what you call it, but here is an interesting example: An international phone call costs about 2 cents/min to produce. The average rate paid for by the consumer is 62 cents. That's means the carriers mark up this particular product by an amazing 3000%. Can you name another business that has comparable mark-ups? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

3 2

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 19:09:25 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > > A reasonable person recognizes that such a business has two ways > > of fulfilling its responsiblities. They can either submit to > > regulation and quality control from the local municipality or > > else they can hang signs about their place of business declaring > > "Caveat Emptor: Our food may be tainted, eat at your own risk". > > Which do you think is the more reasonable? > > It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice. I would > choose the second, myself. Only my sign would say, "Our food is > guaranteed not tainted by the Acme insurance company, not some > corrupt government." The problem is, governments do not allow > businesses nor consumers to make that sort of choice. With them > it's, "my way or the highway" (or harassment and jail actually). And any insurance company with a whit of sense would charge you rates so high that your much touted small vendors and many of the medium sized vendors currently in business would not exist. You think governments are bad? Wait till you see a bunch of bean counters racing a profit margin. In such a situation we wouldn't even have the opportunity for input into the system via constitutions, charters, and votes. Just imagine how much support a Japanese insurance company would provide its clients in regards to the current epidemic in Japan, absolutely none because it is better the little vendor go out of business than the insurance company. > Until Jim shows me a business that isn't owned and operated by > people, I'll have to respectfully disagree. Businesses are just > people acting alone or in concert. Actions are what count, not > whether the action is of a pecuniary nature or not. I own 2 businesses (CyberTects & Linux System Development Labs) and work for another (Tivoli - IBM), none are equivalent to my person. Businesses are a system of rules and procedures that one offers another person in exchange for some other commodity. Saying a business has the same rights as a person is equivalent to saying the Empire State Bldg. has civil rights because persons built it and occupy it. My dog has a better argument for civil rights than any business, it breaths and shits. Would you seriously give my dog a vote? I shure won't, and I won't support any business with rights. Jim Choate

5 4

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 14:10:55 -0700 > From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS > > (Fortunately, people survive all kinds of dirt and germs. If dogs and cats > can eat stuff off the floor, and our ancestors did before hot water, soap, > and autoclaves, then so can we. Not to mention children. But I digress.) True enough, but not the whole story. If a dog or cat is kept well and fed good quality food they live 10+ years. The average life of an animal on the street is between 2-5 years. As to people, we now live around 75-80 years, prior to all these rules and regulations on food and such the average was 20-25. If we go back to what you propose you would be dead a long time ago. > The use of zoning and health code ordnances to harass certain classes of > people is nothing new. Like I said, the Boy Scout Cookout and similar > "good" events are not bothered by City Inspectors descending on them to > shut them down. In my experience they don't get hassled because they get the requisite permits and act in good faith. Many of these small businesses and street vendors are 'hassled' because they are unwilling or unable to meet basic commen sense standards of conduct and go out of there way to circumvent regulations and in some cases commen sense. I have a friend who worked at a local strip club on N. Lamar (Yellow something...) up until a few weeks ago. Seems one of the workers there turned a freezer off and as a result some meat was tainted. Did they throw it out? Hell no, they went ahead and served it because to do othewise would effect their profit margin. My (and by extension your) life is not worth a few measly bucks. My friend complained bitterly and when they went ahead and did it he quit and filed a complaint with the local health dept. (I am completely unaware of the result but the club is still open). I once got food poisoning from a Vietnamese food vendor on the West Mall at UT Austin and complained and called the Health Dept. Last time I was down on The Drag (the popular name of the street) the same vendor was still in business and this was over 10 years later. And for the record I have bought food there, I have just become more careful about its taste and quality. > Further, in time past the operation of a "street food" service (hot dogs, > ice cream, various knoshing items, etc.) was a way for otherwise poor > persons to start a business. My own city, Santa Cruz, has no pushcart > vendors, and only one officially-approved sidewalk hotdog vendor. A loss > for us, a loss for would-be vendors, and with no gain in "food safety" that > I can plausible see. Why do they prohibit permits for these types of businesses? > I actually think this shows another side of the harassment of food > giveaways and low-cost vendors: it cuts down on competition with the > established food entities. While I tend to dismiss "corporate conspiracy" > theories about how Giant Corporations are repressing and suppressing the > Little Guys, there is little doubt that licensing, zoning, and other > governmental restrictions are often used by established entities to keep > out competition. Licenses get used for what economists call "rent-seeking" > behavior. You should be more careful about who you pick to represent you then when you vote. Here in Austin back in the 80's the big thing was to move the airport out of town. So many of the public officials rushed out and bought land near the little town outside Austin in the hopes that the airport would be moved there. It was so bad we had many elections where the citizenry voted not to move the airport and the city council went ahead with the actions anyway. Finaly a few years ago the feds closed Bergston the local airbase and the entire rationale for moving the airport fell through and now all those people have retired from local political actions because they are all broke. > (Examples abound in other areas, too, such as where large chip companies > like Intel actually relish the vast amounts of paperwork they are required > to fill out, becuase this overhead and legal burden can be handled by their > buildings full of paper pushers, but helps to keep small companies from > entering the market. Intel has actually insisted that small companies file > the same environmental impact reports, labor reports, etc., that they have > to fill out. Understandable at one level, but also an example of using "the > system" to put pressure on upstarts. Or, the rent-seeking of professional > guilds, well-known to all of us.) I personaly find it reassuring that some bunch of knuckle-heads are unable to start a chip making facility like you support. The thought of finding flourine compounds in the local river (where I get my tap water) or simply dumped in the air is a little unsettling. Just because some group of bozo's want to start a business is not sufficient justification for that to be allowed. It seems to me that many of the folks who recognize downsized workers pleas for their 'right to a job' as so much bunk are at the same time supporting a businesses right to start up. A pretty humorous double standard. Persons don't have a right to work and businesses do not have a right to start up unless they can meet reasonable levels of responsibility for their actions. People and by extension businesses do not have the right to harm others without their prior consent. As an extension of this, people have a right to limit the ways and means that a business may use in order to operate. > As to Alan Horowitz's bizarre notion that "public streets" are not to be > used for giving away food, I have never heard of anyone being arrested for giving away food, only selling it without a license. I bet the Salvation Army soup kitchen would be worried if this claim were true (they aren't and it ain't). > does he believe the same to be true of giving > away speech, giving away ideas, passing books to other people, etc.? "There > are bookstores for selling or buying books, and anyone who engages in this > sort of action on a public street will have his attitude adjusted with my > billy club." I am unaware of any municipality which prohibits giving away books, they regulate bookstores because they are a business and engaged in commerce. If you are aware of a municipality (or any list reader for that matter) I would appreciate being informed (ie mail me privately). > "Public" areas cause problems for analysis of rights, I will grant. The > "commons problem" is well known. But I think that the specific cases we've > been discussing, of whacking bums with nightsticks for the crime of not > maintaining "proper decorum," and of Food Not Bombs being shut down while > the Boy Scouts are not, are clear cases where the law is being misapplied. And your argument that a business should have the same rights and considerations as a human being is bogus. If that were true then by extensio governments would have rights, which they don't. Unless you breath and shit you don't have rights, only duties and responsibilities assigned by the persons who built the system. A structure is not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination as the person(s) who built it. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:28 PM 8/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >Its up to you what you call it, but here is an interesting example: > >An international phone call costs about 2 cents/min to produce. The average >rate paid for by the consumer is 62 cents. That's means the carriers mark >up this particular product by an amazing 3000%. > >Can you name another business that has comparable mark-ups? Verisign? InterNic Domain name registration? Licence plates in Washington state? --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:20 AM 8/1/96 -0800, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> reminded us: >Also: Clipper was fabbed by VLSI Technology. A few pointed inquiries might >work wonders here. It was made by Mykotronx, using tamperproof programmable gate array chips from VLSI, though I don't remember whether they were entirely programmed at Mykotronx+NSA, or whether they were mostly mask-programmed at VLSI first. On the other hand, if you _want_ to make a DES-cracker, at the time Clipper came out, VLSI was making a 192Mbps DES chip, and they may have faster stuff now. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Rescind Authority!

1 0

Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:48 PM 8/2/96 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > and black and smokeless powder taggants. Such materials will be easy to defeat. Find an indoor shooting range, vacuum up the powder residue that falls in front of the shooting stalls, and you'll have a concentrated mixture of literally hundreds of types of taggants. Add to bomb. Laughing, at this point, is optional. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:10 8/2/96, Jim Choate wrote: >In my experience they don't get hassled because they get the requisite >permits and act in good faith. Many of these small businesses and street >vendors are 'hassled' because they are unwilling or unable to meet basic >commen sense standards of conduct and go out of there way to circumvent >regulations and in some cases commen sense. Jim, I was there when Food Not Bombs got busted in San Francisco. They tried to get a permit from the Health Department, but the HD refused to even process the application. FNB finally won the case. I guess next time the HD will be smarter, process the application and deny it. At present, SF has a hands-off policy in regards to Food Not Bombs. The feeding was never the real issue. The heavy political indoctrination that came with it was. Patrick McHenry handed out the food, screaming in a mike, in front of the Federal Building (without interfering with pedestrians in any way) as the Feds came out on their lunch hour, having to listen to him complain about President Bush's CIA background, calling Bush a drug dealer, and demanding to know why there was no money for food when there was plenty of money for nukes. Now can we please let this thread (at least on the list) die? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:01:41 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd) > > > to yourself. The burden of proof rests on the individual to prove that such > > actions by a third party are a public nuisance. > > Bzzt, wrong anser. Thanks for playing. A state and it's political > subdivisions does have the power to enact an ordinance DEFINING what > constitutes a public nuisance. They need merely protect > constitutionally-protected rights. States don't enact ordinances, they enact laws. An ordinance is a regulation which applies in a local municipality regulated by a charter. Laws are enacted by a state or federal government regulated by a constitution. A trivial distinction I agree. I would be willing to accept the premise that in practice such terms are equivalent. They have the right to enact such ordinances if their charter permits. No community, state, or federal government in the US is given carte blanche in regards to the creation of laws, regulation, and ordinances. If you live in a state which permits the state government to enact such laws then you have my sympathy. At least here in Texas the state government is not given that job. It is left to the individual municipalities to define public nuisance. Here in Austin the homeless were allowed to sleep at the capitol because it is public property. Sad to say, that day is dead. I oppose those changes as well. I believe it would be a good thing if more of our public representatives had to face the homeless and other unpleasantries in modern life on a personal and daily basis. They might be motivated to get off their asses and serve the people instead of their campaign contributors. Which constitution? The Federal government is tasked with upholding the Constitution, not the states. The states are tasked with upholding their individual Constitution provided they don't conflict with federal laws. Municipalities are tasked with upholding their charters unless at odds with the state or federal constitutions. You make it sound like my local city council person is responsible for the Constitution, they are not any more than I am. > The City of Seattle may not define the act of disseminating anonymous > pamphlets as a nuisance. They may define the act of dissemination by > throwing them out the window of a moving vehicle, as a nuisance. I would call it littering. There is litte reason to expect people to pick up pamphlets from the middle of the street. As to handing them out, that is protected. If the person you hand it to throws it down on the ground then they are littering. It is called personal responsibility and respect for oneself. From this springs respect for others. > YOu are disconnected from reality. I am not going to waste further > keystrokes on this topic. My side already controls the electoral college > on this one. It's not my problem. I may be disconnected from your reality, but reality is observer dependant. But it is your problem because 'your' side is aging and my generation is just now coming into power (ie eligable to run for president and such). With a little luck we might be able to make a difference. All those people out there you look down upon living in the streets with mohawks and rings through their clits listening to Pigface and Skinny Puppy get to make the decisions now. My suggestion to those who support the status quo is to run, run very fast. We are the ones your mother warned you about. Were pissed off enough that we aren't going to use violence and such, we intend to use your own system of rules against you. Ravage Black Leather Monster

3 2

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 21:33:20 -0700 > From: shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd) > > >In my experience they don't get hassled because they get the requisite > >permits and act in good faith. Many of these small businesses and street > >vendors are 'hassled' because they are unwilling or unable to meet basic > >commen sense standards of conduct and go out of there way to circumvent > >regulations and in some cases commen sense. > > I was there when Food Not Bombs got busted in San Francisco. They tried to > get a permit from the Health Department, but the HD refused to even process > the application. FNB finally won the case. I guess next time the HD will be > smarter, process the application and deny it. At present, SF has a > hands-off policy in regards to Food Not Bombs. What exactly was the reason for the refusal to process the form? At that point the FNB folks should have started a suite against the city and not gone to the park. If they did they should have been very careful about advertising the HD's refusal and making it clear that their presence and actions there were a form of political disobedience. There are good ways to tweak a nose and there are bad ways. Sounds like these folks chose a bad way to begin with. I am glad to hear that justice won out in the end. I bet next time the HD just processes the form. Is the person in charge of the HD elected or appointed? If appointed than start a suite against them as well as the department. > The feeding was never the real issue. The heavy political indoctrination > that came with it was. Patrick McHenry handed out the food, screaming in a > mike, in front of the Federal Building (without interfering with > pedestrians in any way) as the Feds came out on their lunch hour, having to > listen to him complain about President Bush's CIA background, calling Bush > a drug dealer, and demanding to know why there was no money for food when > there was plenty of money for nukes. I would have gone back the next day w/ a larger amp. > Now can we please let this thread (at least on the list) die? Certainly. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:13:14 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd) > > > But it is your problem because 'your' side is aging and my generation is just > > now coming into power (ie eligable to run for president and such). With a > > Why am I having these flashbacks to the Clinton Campaign promises of 1992 > about there existing a young man who is a "New Democrat", a white house > that will have the highest-ever level of ethics, etc, etc, etc. My first guess is that you were taking LSD back then but then I wasn't there. The second guess would be because you didn't read very carefuly. I said nothing about highest-ethics or any other such promises of behaviour or action. I think you are reading more into my statement than is there. I simply said that some of my generation plan on using the rules against the establishment. I consider that a subtle but important difference. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:03:43 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > Corporations are state-created persons [legal definition of "person", not > colloquial vernacular]. They have some privileges which have surface > resmblence to the rights of natural people. For example, they can "have > standing" in a court to initiate a legal proceeding - in their own name, > not that of an agent or employee or trustee. Exactly, 'surface resemblance'. The Constitution at no point mentions businesses in respect to the rights of the individual which is where all discussions must start from in this government. For example, some folks have claimed that corporations have rights that prevent warantless searches and such. I have to strongly disagree. I see no rational way to extend this to a corporation. If the police must use a warrant to search a business located other than in a persons home or on their property it is because the people who are present on that premisis have rights and those rights would be infringed by such searches. I am not even shure I accept the legal premise of corporations. The amendment say: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Jim Choate

2 1

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Sat Aug 3 00:38:30 1996 > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:06:55 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> > cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <ae28119a020210049840(a)[205.199.118.202]> > Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960803010515.1359F-100000(a)larry.infi.net> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Precedence: bulk > > We must always look at the legal definition of words. If I _give_ a > joint, I can be charged with sale of a controlled substance. That no > money changed hands is irrelevant. > Wrong, you can be charged with distribution, not sales. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: crypto CD source
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Some time ago on the list there was some discussion of putting together a CD >full of cryptographic software and reference material. Nothing came of it, but >I think several people expressed an interest I have about 100MB (compressed) of crypto archives, papers, source code, etc etc, reasonably well organised with descriptions of each file. I've got a friend to put it on CD, but only for my own use. If there's someone who can get them done in bulk outside the US you could probably use this as a crypto CD (I don't think there's anyone in NZ who could do it, and I don't really want the hassle of organising the whole thing). Peter.

1 0

Why Fingerprints and Key-ID's
by Paul Wittry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Cypherpunks, I understand PGP Open-Signed messages and why they are used. I've read all the FAQ's. I can't seem to figure out why some of us put our Fingerprints and/or Key-ID's at the end of messages. The answer to my question is probably in a FAQ somewhere and I'm missing it, I learn best by watching (visually) or by doing (experientially) so I'm having a little trouble learning from documentation. In any case, if someone would spend a little time to explain, or point me in the right direction, I would be grateful. Thanks, Paul -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgLPl8498OZoTL5VAQFcrwP+JNK8K0cQFdU8+//GQQvj2Z3hn7gTgTeH SRHosvwj5xNmR5pB9h8FlQillZ+OQEeEF+/z75+fqyK9AD68i+F0c0bymj1vJ6zR zQnjUsIh/VBKLAvrmnmf08E4uWo2wdJrsjBtRkvShmMWHOBxsp5dReDrsVNPRHtK Pp1zqTLUBpk= =1kJ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ___________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wittry, Visual Artist, Philosopher, Poet|"A poet is a dethroned king Internet:<ppw3(a)everett.com> <bi065(a)scn.org> |sitting among the ashes of Homepage:<http://www.everett.net/users/ppw3> |his palace trying to form an PGP Public Key=Finger:<ppw3(a)everett.com> |image from out of the ashes." Please, encrypt your messages!!!! |_______________Kalil Gibran__

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 22:05:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > > And any insurance company with a whit of sense would charge you rates so > > high that your much touted small vendors and many of the medium sized > > vendors currently in business would not exist. You think governments are > > bad? Wait till you see a bunch of bean counters racing a profit margin. In > > such a situation we wouldn't even have the opportunity for input into the > > system via constitutions, charters, and votes. Just imagine how much support > > a Japanese insurance company would provide its clients in regards to the > > current epidemic in Japan, absolutely none because it is better the little > > vendor go out of business than the insurance company. > > Apparently Jim does not understand that the "race for profit > margin" is what LOWERS the prices of goods and services. You > might check out HUMAN ACTION by von Mises. Anyway, as I said in > my previous post. Really? Then would you mind explaining why costs rise over time instead of going down? Compare the cost of almost anything over time and what happens? The price goes up. Insurance has become involved in the medical industry, what happened? The cost has gone through the roof. The airplane industry was deregulated in the late 70's, what happened? The price of a ticket went up and more and more airlines went out of business because of lagging sales. In many states (such as Texas) insurance was made mandatory, what happened? The cost of automobile insurance went up. The telephone companies were broken up and 'privatized' in the 80's and what happened? The cost of phone service has gone up and the rate of new service introduction has gone down. In almost any case you care to mention where a monopoly or near-monopoly market exists and is deregulated the cost of operation has gone up. > > > It would be nice if businesses were offered that choice > > I'm confident that the market solution would be far cheaper and > less violent they injecting the coercive state apparatus into a > volutary transactions between PEOPLE. If this is so then by your own argument, business are operated by people therefor they are people, the government should conform to this model since it is operated by people also (by your argument). Therefore governments have rights (clearly incorrect). Governments have duties and responsibilities, under our Constitution the government is given no right. As a matter of fact if there is a disagreement or unclear point the 10th says specificaly that the government does not get to resolve it but rather the states or the people. Clearly the founding fathers were drawing a distinction between the people operating a system and the system itself. > > I own 2 businesses...none are equivalent to my person. > > So? They are owned and operated by people. Yes, but they are not people any more than my ownership and operation of my motor vehicle makes it a person. Is your contention that because I own and operate a computer it should be given rights? This is sorta funny, I can see it now... "Your honor we would like to call Mr. Choate's 1985 Mustang to the stand to give testimony." "Mr. Choate's 1986 Mustang, you have been found guilty of speeding and reckless driving." Hey, come to think of it, this would make a great defence for many things. "But your honor, my automobile has rights and is considered a person, therefore you can't hold me responsible for running over those six nuns and two infants. I was simply along for the ride. The only reason that I was in the vehicle was that I was afraid to open the door and jump at 120 MPH." Yup, I definately like where this is going... I can see a cop reading my computer it's Miranda and waiting till Hell freezes over for a positive responce. Just think, all those dead cars...er persons...in the auto...er people-crusher... We should bring those monsters up on charges for killing people. Talk about mass murder. > > Businesses are a system of rules and procedures... > > Made and enforced by PEOPLE. Jim is begging the question. Which question would that be? "Should businesses be considered people with the same rights and priviliges?" If so then it is clearly a negative answer. The Constitution does not accept that premise and the law does not accept that premise. If a business is found guilty of wrong doing do they put it in jail? No, they put the persons involved in jail. Clearly the courts are drawing a distinction between a system and those who operate it. Does the constitution ever mention business or commercial enterprise in equality with persons? Does this equality mean that I need to go the courthouse and get a DBA in order to legaly exist in Texas as a business must? Consider my dog, Reef, she is owned and operated by a person (I feed her, walk her, clean up her messes, teach her tricks, even kill her if I choose - though I can't be cruel to her) does this mean she is a person? Sounds like the original proposition, that businesses should be awarded the same rights as people because they are owned and operated by people, is a reduction to absurtity. > > Would you seriously give my dog a vote? > > Gee, I don't know your dog. His understanding of economics > couldn't be much more rudimentary. (Okay, it was a cheap > shot, but it was a silly question.) If I may, I would like to use a quote from the Transformers movie, "You obviously don't understand the situation then." Tata. Jim Choate

2 1

Re: Freeh slimes again: Digital Telephony costs $2 billion now ...
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:11 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >At 18:29 8/1/96, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>(With the Internet Phone deals--even Intel is entering the market--why are >>there no widespread uses of PGP or S/MIME? Yes, I know about about PGPhone, >>and also the Nautilus product, but none seem to be used by anyone I know. >>Maybe we should spend some time talking about the practical realities of >>these tools.) > >The sound quality really isn't there, unless you have a fast machine or a >fat pipe. In addition, the vast majority of Intel based computers lack the >crucial (for user acceptance) full-duplex soundcard. Add to that the >physical impossibility of getting decent real time services over a >non-isochronous network, such as the Internet, I'net phones just don't >provide suffcient speech quality for business/serious personal use even >without the added overhead of crypto. Which reminds me... If there is any function Cypherpunks (and/or cyberpunks) should perform, it's one of using a "bully pulpit" to influence technical developments. Consider, for example, your observation that "the vast majority of Intel based computers lack the crucual full-duplex soundcard." When I first heard that this was true, I wondered what bunch of nincompoops were responsible for this outrage. There are many potential uses for soundcards which require full-duplex operation. Only the most stupid and basic functions don't. There was no good reason for this lack; Presumably if somebody had been at the right place at the right time, he could have reminded that shit-for-brains "engineer" of the obvious consequences of building a product with such an egregious bug designed into it. Anyway, that's water under the bridge. However, we're probably all in agreement that Internet telephone (non-encrypted as well as encrypted) is going to be a big product in just a few years. This will require (or desire) a few high-CPU-power functions: 1. A modem, obviously. 2. Good encryption, possibly. 3. Audio A/D and D/A, and associated compression functions. I propose that the better way of implementing it, rather than going through a sound card, is for modem manufacturers to built an new modem with an extra telephone connection (perhaps the same physical connector that's currently used for the telephone handset) which goes to an ordinary telephone and does the audio A/D and D/A conversion, as well as the data compression/data expansion function that will be necessary. The latter function would be done by an extra DSP on this modem/Internet telephone card. Briefly, you'd talk into an ordinary telephone on your desk, which would be connected to the modem/telephone card. That card would digitize your speech to whatever level of resolution is practical, and compress it into an appropriate data rate. This data would either be encrypted by the same DSP, or possibly presented to the host CPU for encryption. From there, it would be sent to the modem section and transmitted over the telephone line. I think this would be superior to the use of a sound card, for a number of reasons. First, obviously, is the reduction in cards in simple and/or portable systems. To require that you have both a modem and a sound card (as well as a cpu) to implement an Internet telephone is unreasonable. Secondly, using a sound card (which can't do any compression) requires that you implement both the compresssion and encryption function with the host processor, which might be impractical for a low-cost processor like a '486. Putting a substantial portion of this function into a dedicated DSP means that main-processor overhead becomes minimal. Third, implementing a "flow-through" telephone circuit allows you to interpose this encryptor into an existing telephone system, such as that of a house or office. The existing handsets can be used with no modification, presumably. This would also allow easy implementation of a computer-controlled answering machine-type, because the computer will be able to digitize/synthesize audio as well as record it. It could also implement fax and modem/bbs functions. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:52 AM 8/2/96 -0700, daw(a)cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) wrote: >> would dramatically change surveillance authority to include wiretaps of >> INDIVIDUALS instead of LOCATIONS. >I don't get it. Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional? [CENSORED MATERIAL DELETED] You've been hanging out with those subversive Canadians again, haven't you? It's covered by the Terrorism Exception to the 4th Amendment.* >P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones? Do you mean legally? :-) Some combination of laws and court decisions has established that cordless phones don't provide an expectation of privacy, but cellular phones do, so eavesdropping on cellular phones requires wiretapping authorization (whether a warrant, FISA permission, or whatever other procedures constitute Due Process.) ----------------------------------- * The Drug Exception to the 4th Amendment says ", except for drugs, of course." The Terrorism Exception says "Be afraid. Be very afraid." ----------------------------------- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Liberating Clipper Stuff from Mykotronx Dumpsters
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:24 AM 8/3/96, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 09:20 AM 8/1/96 -0800, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> reminded us: >>Also: Clipper was fabbed by VLSI Technology. A few pointed inquiries might >>work wonders here. > >It was made by Mykotronx, using tamperproof programmable gate >array chips from VLSI, though I don't remember whether they were >entirely programmed at Mykotronx+NSA, or whether they were >mostly mask-programmed at VLSI first. By the way, newcomers to the list (I'm not referring to Bill, of course) may not know some of the background on this Mykotronx story. An interesting use of remailers, too. One of the early list subscribers went "Dumpster-diving" outside the Torrance, CA headquarters of Mykotronx, a previously little-known defense subcontractor. Amongst the stuff in the Dumpster, unshredded, he found: - payroll information - copies of contracts with VLSI Technology, the NSA, AT&T, etc., showing the work to have started back in the early 90s - yield information on the chips, and some limited test information - copies of various memoranda between AT&T, the NSA, the FBI, Mykotronx, Sandia, and VLSI Technology - a bunch of other goodies He scanned or typed this stuff he found into a text file and sent it to one of the earliest members of the Cypherpunks list, asking for it to be passed on to someone who could do something with it. A few hours later, via anonymous remailer posting, it went out to the several hundred subscribers to the Cypherpunks list at that time. (It's somewhere in the archives, such as they are. This would be around late April, 1993, possibly May-June.) I later heard that Mykotronx was mightily embarrassed to have this kind of stuff found in Dumpsters out where anyone could find it, and that "the authorities" ordered a tightening up of security. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Jim Bell, stay out of Georgia....
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:54 AM 8/2/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >>> JONESBORO, Ga. -- An 18-year-old self-styled anarchist who allegedly >>> distributed a free, homemade pamphlet with anti-government rhetoric >>> has been charged with advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. ..... >Brian -- why do the cops do busts like this where they know they will be >thrown out? 1) Because they can 2) Because they can get away with it 3) Because most of the public approves of this kind of <noun deleted> 4) Because they can put out press releases encouraging 2) and 3) and folks will believe them. 5) Because if the case gets dropped it _might_ make Page 43 of the newspaper and will be covered in a way that makes it clear that they're the good guys. 6) Because the state/city/town will cover their legal costs and penalties if they somehow lose a lawsuit 7) Because the state/city/town _won't_ cover the costs of a real defense of the "self-styled anarchist", who'll have to put up with a lot of crap as well as the 47:59:59 hours they can keep him in jail for no good reason plus any more until he can make bail for the bogusly heavy charges they'll lay on him. 8) Because once you're a "self-styled" anything, you don't get no respect. 9) I've never met any cops who were bullies - have you? 10)It's covered by the Anarchists and Commies Exception to the First Amendment. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:42 PM 8/2/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 16:50:01 -0500 (CDT) >> From: snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> >> Subject: Re: A Libertine Question >> >> As long as you are enforcing it on everyone, I don't think you'd have a >> problem, but to force some one from cooking food for homeless people, and >> allow a family barbeque, is IMO wrong. > >Not at all. Businesses have no rights, individuals do. Businesses have a <snip> >Blueberries they bought at the local HEB). Individuals have a right to >privacy, that includes cooking themselves food without harrassment. Business >on the other hand are selling products of potentialy questionable quality. A I disagree with your sentiments about Business and rights, however, in this instance, even that wasn't the issue. Food Not Bombs is NOT a business, it's a not-for-profit organization that gives out (not sells) food. They are the same as, I think Tim May pointed out, a Boy Scout picnic, except for the homless, not the boy scouts. //cerridwyn//

2 1

Re: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Because none of these issues have ever been tested in a court of law any comments I or any other person makes (even if a lawyer) is simply personal opinion. To find out what is 'really' going on we will have to simply wait for that first case. Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 22:28:37 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd) > > A. Where does Jim get the terms of the contract he implies from > the simple word "public"? As far as I can see, he simply made > it up from whole cloth. Interesting, but totally without any > legal basis. Public - of or pertaining to the people; not private or secret; open to general use; accessible to all; serving the people. Community or its members; a section of community. Making known to the public; proclamation; printing in a book, etc. for sale or distribution. To make widely known; to advertise. The state of being generaly known; notoriety; advertisement. I first learned about the cpunks list in Mondo 2000 several years ago not long after I got PGP 1.0 off Adelante BBS in Co. Wasn't Eric's girlfriend involved in Mondo 2000? (Hi Jude, I think we will have a RoboFest this year in Austin, as always you are invited) Which would indicate a certain level of premeditation regarding letting people know of the list. I think that qualifies as public, I also think a court would accept that argument. The bottem line is that the list operator crossed that line whether they were aware of it or not. If they feel uncomfortable with this then they should consider very strongly dropping the list or enacting some form of registration more preferential than majordomo's subscribe system. This registration should clearly define what is and is not allowed on this list. > B. I'm unaware that the Cypherpunks list has ever been advertised > as "public" by the list owner. It has appeared in many publications which are intended for general or 'public' distribution in every one of those publications it was made clear that anyone was welcome and the subscription address was provided. The list operators ignorance of the consequences of their actions in no way alleviates them of the consequences of those actions. > C. Combining A & B, I know of know instance where the owners of > the Cypherpunks list ever made any indication that they were > adhearing to the Byzantine interpretation of contract law as > suggested by Jim. (It sure doesn't comport to what I learned > in my Contracts classes.) It isn't my interpretation. Perhaps you should have paid better attention in class. These issues have never been tested in a court of law in the US in regards to computer networks and their special nature. > > > A restaurant or bookstore is a public place in that it is open > > > to the public. > > > > I know of no state in the union where a bookstore, restaurant, > > mall, etc. is considered public. > > Actually, it's the law in ALL states in the union since the Public > Accomidations Act was enacted some time in the '60s (with the > possible exception of Texas, I guess). Not in Texas. We recently passed a law (Jan. 8) which permits citizens legaly registered to carry concealed weapons. Because the way the law was worded it was made clear in many newspapers and such that the ONLY way that business could prohibit patrons from entering their premises with those weapons was because they were PRIVATE property and therefore excluded from the constraints of the law. [When I worked at UT the rationale that was used to throw the dumpster divers off campus was that even though it was a publicly funded school by taxes it was private property (didn't make sense to me then or now). I can also state unequivacly that if the UTPD catch you on campus after 10pm or before 6AM w/o proof of either being a current student or staff consider it a graceful and considerate officer if they only escort you off campus.] Even now there is a big discussion here over whether this is realy a strong enough distinction. It is only a matter of time before a case comes up here to test even this limitation of private ownership (which I happen to support, a person with a gun on my private property is definately subject to my desires and wants, they represent a clear and present danger. If they don't then why do they need to register the weapons and why are they classed 'deadly weapons'?). The really sad part is that it will probably be another one of those shoot outs at Wendy's in Waco or some such nonesense as some loony toon goes postal. I wonder if that was what Jeffeson meant about watering the tree of liberty with blood? If my business property is really public simply because I am open to the public then I feel the police have a responsibility to provide an officer on my premises for whatever hours I am open for business to protect me, my property, and my patrons just like they do at the courthouse, tax accessors office, etc. They also have a responsibility to help assist in the operation and funding of my business (something I oppose strongly) since they have now found my business to be public; as a matter of fact they can help pay my damn taxes. For the record Florida and every other state with 'Right To Carry' laws looks at it this way. It is the only way under the current statutes to allow businesses to control access by gun toting folks. Now there is one caveat that most of you will have caught. That is the definitions of public above. In short, we have a circular argument as the law is worded now. Logicaly the courts have two recourses. They can first declare that no agency has the right to regulate gun ownership and possession (what I want to see) or else regardless of the 2nd, nobody has the right to carry a weapon on their person in public, since police are not awarded special consideration from constitutional law this would mean they could not carry a weapon on their side in public. So the courts eventualy must either refuse to review the case or else they must make some major change in the current law which goes against the government either way. Either everyone gets to wear weapons or nobody including the police get to carry them. Either way with the last two the police are in a situation where they are less likely to employ force for enforcement since they are no longer the strong side in the 'discussion'. > > Legaly a public place is someplace which is operated using > > public monies. > > Like the Cypherpunks list? Citation, please. The Cpunks list isn't a place. It is a steam of characters. Does the list reside on my computer? It does at least to some degree since I obviously have access to discuss these issues with you. It also resides on your computer as well as the thousand or so subscribers. It resides at least in part on the screen of my crt, the RAM in my computer, the network cable, the ISDN line, my providers router, my brain, the EM emission of the computer, etc. ad nauseum. So there is no single 'place' where the list resides, any more than a single place that an idea resides. This whole issue is the reason that I contend that eventualy it will be seen clearly that postings on usenet, public accessible mailing lists, irc channels, etc. are actualy automaticaly public domain in regards to their content. At some point I feel that it will turn out that unless you encrypt your data or place copyright symbols on it with special, and likely convoluted, riders allowing various distributions and storing via computer networks the author of computer text such as this will grant all rights and privileges to the work to the public automaticaly. This belief is the reason that I am interested in crypto, outside the simple curiosity I have about nature. I don't believe the cpunks list has ever been involved in a legal case. As a matter of fact this issue has never been tested in a court of law. Perhaps we should look at forcing a case. The best strategy would be for Eric to throw somebody off the list sureptitously (sp? I put the dictionaries back and I ain't walking over there again...sorry) and then for that person to bring a civil suit alleging infringement of civil liberties (ie equal access under the law). Eric would claim the list is private while the expunged user would claim it was public. We would of course have to resolve the cost issue first. I have two lawyers on retainer for my businesses but I don't believe either would touch a non-commerical case like this would be and I don't have anywhere near the personal capital to finance it myself. As a added bonus we could pick a handicapped person and they could sue under the various laws relating to those issues as well. This would get the whole issue of handicapped access to computer technology to be explored. Currently the handicapped (eg blind) find GUI interfaces nearly unusable. It would be pretty weird (to me) to see court rule that every os and software manufacturer must provide a CLI interface to their products because of the new equal access laws regarding handicapped individuals. > The problem with Jim is not that he doesn't know anything, but > rather that he knows so many things that aren't true. (But I > would not favor enforcing the state granted monopoly on the > practice of law if Jim wants to hang out his shingle. If he can > get someone to pay him for legal advice, more power to him, but > /caveat emptor/.) That is a two edged sword. Where did you get your law degree? My lawyers both got theirs at UT Austin Law School. Both are federal lawyers and both have argued before the Supreme and are currently allowed to argue before the Supremes. The bottem line is that this whole issue is so full of circular arguments and contrary views it may take quite a few years to work out something that makes any kind of sense at all, if ever. Course by then we will have a whole new generatio of technology to argue over. Take care all, and watch your sixes. Jim Choate

3 2

TrustBucks
by TrustBuckFella 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An alternative model of electronic money. Every model of electronic money I know of except one retains some degree of centralization. There is always a central "mint", usually a bank. If you can't find a bank that acts the way you want, you're SOL. And the only thing that enforces non-abuse (inflation, etc) by the bank is the equivalence of electronic money to some form of "real" money. The sole exception is Digicash. Unfortunately, Digicash has no restraint on infinite spending-into-debt. I want to present an alternative model I call "TrustBucks". TrustBucks is decentralized but zero-sum and needs no assistance from "real" currency. Its central idea is a "web of trust": Local, trusted contacts are linked in a web that at some remove can extend everywhere. I'm not going to try to develop the cryptographic protocols for TrustBucks. I haven't got the requisite paranoia and pickiness (compliments both) for that. TrustBucks also has nothing in the way of anonymity and restraint on double-spending right now. If you can see how it could be anonymous or restrain double-spending and still work, please feel free to add. The basic rules of TrustBucks: - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Each individual using TrustBucks has their own individual variety of currency, notated here as TrustBucks( <name> ). Each individual is considered to have an infinite supply of their own TrustBucks. Each individual accepts payment only in their own variety of TrustBucks. There are only two fundamental operations with TrustBucks: A and B swap TrustBucks, of any two varieties. A pays B in TrustBucks( B ) for something external to the system. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Examples: Say Alice wants to pay Bob in TrustBucks, and Bob agreed to accept payment in this form. Alice has several options for paying him. * Alice already has some TrustBucks( Bob ). Alice pays Bob. * The amount is small enough that Bob trusts Alice directly. Alice and Bob swap TrustBucks( Alice ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. I know this looks like an extra piece of complexity, but it's really not. By insisting that only TrustBucks( Bob ) are payment to Bob, we insure that Bob can't manipulate what currency he will accept to his advantage, which would otherwise be a problem. For instance, Bob cannot refuse to make good on his debts while accepting other people's money. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), but does have TrustBucks( Carol ), and Bob trusts Carol directly for that amount. Alice and Bob swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), but does have TrustBucks( Carol ), and Carol has some TrustBucks( Bob ). Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. * Alice doesn't have enough TrustBucks( Bob ), and Carol has some TrustBucks( Bob ), and Carol trusts Alice directly. Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Alice ) for TrustBucks( Carol ) Alice and Carol swap TrustBucks( Carol ) for TrustBucks( Bob ) Alice pays Bob. Using some combination of the above methods, Alice can pay Bob as long as there are accessible parties in the system who, in total sum, trust Alice for the amount of the payment, and there are accessible parties in the system whom, in total sum, Bob is willing to trust for the amount of his credit. Which gives the scheme its name: TrustBucks. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Disadvantages: Lots of overhead. Third-party traders must be perpetually available. Not anonymous. Not clear how double-spending can be avoided. Not a true disadvantage: It could "stall"; that is, there could be catch-22 situations where if only some people trusted to begin with, the system could continue, but not enough people trust each other to get it started. I say this is not a true disadvantage because the same thing happens in other currency-schemes, to an equal or larger degree. If it's merely more visible with TrustBucks, that should not be called a disadvantage. In practice, I think the threshhold of trust neccessary to start the system would be considerably with TrustBucks than with other systems. Advantages: Decentralizable. It is not neccessarily decentraliz_ed_, but can become so as needed. Nobody controls the "mint". Few conceptual parts. When counting the parts in other schemes, don't forget to count the parts neccessary to fix or ameliorate problems that don't occur in TrustBucks, like deciding who "prints money", keeping them from abusing the role, stopping others (IE counterfeiters) from assuming the role, and so forth. I don't claim that the above neccessarily adds up to a positive rating, but it's worth hashing out, especially if it inspires more secure protocols along the same decentralized lines. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not the first person to notice that decentralized ideas tend to take off more abruptly and firmly. For instance, PGP vs. Kerberos, or the internet vs. AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve. Especially Usenet and the WWW. That's why I thought a long time about bringing this idea out. Once it's out, it and its successors are beyond my control or anyone else's. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBMgLz8pi7GCxryNrZAQEfAAQApDzHN9PSpARe/MUZgDDk8F+eFLlKNAHZ 5H6KaX3SlWxL9itM8aFMoudpnBU2gAO7Kn9YHV+dFS1l/tE+NJDhSpTRL1EMKVw9 rGrL8lypX9bLsuw0+thMl1djJjQhc3To6qaLhJvZVji7TRXlKYuVMFW5D6Sm988a Zg8nRsCQrIo= =EOKl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 00:18:38 -0700 > From: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn(a)wolfenet.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > I disagree with your sentiments about Business and rights, however, in this > instance, even that wasn't the issue. Food Not Bombs is NOT a business, it's > a not-for-profit organization that gives out (not sells) food. They are the > same as, I think Tim May pointed out, a Boy Scout picnic, except for the > homless, not the boy scouts. Then we have a clear case of abuse of power and if the folks at FNB don't pursue this then they deserve the ignominy they receive. What is the current status? Have counter suites been filed? What was the ACLU and NAACP (I am assuming that everyone at FNB is not anglo-saxon and named 'Fletcher') responce to requests for aid? Have they begun a petition or whatever the city charter allows demanding the ouster of those in charge? What is the Libertarian Party there doing? Has anyone contacted the Justice Dept. and begun the proceeding for a civil rights suit? If these folks seriously went out there not prepared to fight then the issues must not be very important to them, perhaps a simple publicity stunt to get their 15 minutes and not realy to help the homeless/foodless? Has anyone made reference to the judges comments in the CDA trial regarding speech and chaos? While the city acted illegaly, nobody has stated if the city categoricaly prohibits such activities which was the point I was originaly trying to express. Was this a isolated incident originating with the poor decision of a single individual in the HD or was it organized? Have similar responces occured before? Every year on Halloween a bunch of folks here in Texas go down to the State Capital at about 10pm and sit around and smoke pot for about an hour. The city police have no jurisdiction on the capital grounds and the DPS officers pretty much stand around and make shure things don't get out of hand. I have never known of anyone being arrested but then again the place is crawling with video and lawyers ready to pounce. I would contend that one of the reasons that no actions are taken is that the event is organized and the folks come prepared to go to jail and fight if need be. Jim Choate

2 1

Re: "And who shall guard the guardians?"
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:11 PM 8/2/96 -0400, David Lesher wrote: >> The English-Only bill just passed in the House bans the use of >> non-English languages by government officials. Does Tim's sudden >> avoidance of the Latin mean that _he_'s the Fed?? > >What about Navajo? Foreign diplomacy was one of the exceptions. Algol wasn't, since it's designed to describe algorithms to humans, even though it's additionally useful for diplomatic relations with our Mechanical Companions. (Actually, they are allowed to use it for teaching purposes, or if really necessary for National Security, and the Bureau of the Census can use it to help count people.) Section (I), however, is disappointing - means we can't sue them for putting "E Pluribus Unum" on the coinage.... ============================ `(2) OFFICIAL BUSINESS- The term `official business' means governmental actions, documents, or policies which are enforceable with the full weight and authority of the Federal Government, and includes publications, income tax forms, and informational materials, but does not include-- `(A) teaching of languages; `(B) requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; `(C) actions, documents, or policies necessary for-- `(i) national security issues; or `(ii) international relations, trade, or commerce; `(D) actions or documents that protect the public health and safety; `(E) actions or documents that facilitate the activities of the Bureau of the Census in compiling any census of population; `(F) actions, documents, or policies that are not enforceable in the United States; (G) actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes or criminal defendants; `(H) actions in which the United States has initiated a civil lawsuit; or `(I) using terms of art or phrases from languages other than English. =================================================== "These aren't the droids you're looking for." # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

2 1

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 02:38:09 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > > > I am not even shure I accept the legal premise of corporations. > - Jim Choate > > This is NOT a drill. Right, petty harrasment would better describe it. > This is an actual pop quiz, in which Jim Choate > is directed to tell us about the legal premise of incorporation. Jim, do > you know anything about what you are talking about. Looking it up is not > allowed. Why should I be prohibited from looking it up? You had to in order to grasp the concept originaly? Doesn't really matter since I already have done it with LSD Labs. The concept behind incorporation is to create a commercial entity whereby the persons & possessions of the principles can be protected from most legal actions against the corporation. The fictional rights given the corporation is intended to create a framework whereby the existing legal structure can be applied fairly to the business that the corporation carries out. In the case of a single proprietorship such as CyberTects it is possible for me to loose everything I own if the right conditions arise (eg I got sued and lose) in order to pay the judgement. It is much harder for me to loose monies and physical property being involved in a incorporated venture. The reason that I oppose this is the same reason that I oppose the laws that prevent suing the government without their permission. It creates an atmosphere of isolation that gives petty non-elected government prols the feeling of invincibility and isolation. It's just their job, never mind they are fucking peoples lives over. It is the reason that big companies screw up time and time again and still manage to survive and do it to us again. So what do I win other than a hard time? > P.S. could you humor me on one tiny little thing? Can we agree that > that the word shall be spelled "sure", not "shure", on this list? I > don't want to trample on your artistic vision or anything like that, but > could we just agree on this one tiny little thing So fucking sue me for learning to read/write phoneticaly. Geesh what a petty attitude. Do you feel better now? Is your sense of superiority restored? If the only criticism you have is my spelling then shut the fuck up. If it makes you feel any better I am very hyper-active and dyslexic as well. But that is ok, there are people that love me anyway. Jim Choate

1 0

Re: Why Fingerprints and Key-ID's
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:42 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Paul Wittry <ppw3(a)everett.com> wrote: >I understand PGP Open-Signed messages and why they are used. I've >read all the FAQ's. I can't seem to figure out why some of us put our >Fingerprints and/or Key-ID's at the end of messages. Even with the PGP Web Of Trust, one of the difficult problems in cryptography is how to do key distribution - if you want to talk to Bob, how do you know you've really got _Bob's_ key instead of a key some imposter Eve _said_ was Bob's key? Similarly, if you receive a message saying "Bank X will pay you $Y, signed Bank X Small-Transactions-Teller", how do you know it really came from them and wasn't signed by some fake key that Carol genned up? One way is to get some well-known person to sign your key, or a chain of people which get you to a sig for the key you want. Another way is to give out your key, often. That way someone who gets email from "you", signed by "your" key, can compare the key with previous keys you've stuck on your email and business cards, and scream if there's a mismatch. For this, remember to use the full key fingerprint, not just the short KeyID which can be duplicated arbitrarily. This is especially useful for pseudonymous people like Black Unicorn. Another reason is just to remind people you've got a PGP key and make it easier to look up 0x12345678 correctly than "Joe Anonymous" or "smith". # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: strength of 128-bit encryption?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:38 AM 8/2/96 -0400, KDBriggs1(a)aol.com wrote: ><< Current export standards allow export of 512-bit RSA for encrypting > (including key exchange), 1024 bit for signing. >> >1024-bit for signing? Do you have a reference for this? I was under the >impression that digital signatures were not covered by export restrictions. I've heard this also, but remember that the export standards are "whatever specific products we decide you can export" rather than a formal law you can design to and be sure they'll obey. The ITAR doesn't cover pure authentication software, only software capable of preserving privacy through encryption. Some public-key signature algorithms only do signature, some only do privacy, RSA does both. Thus, especially for software like Netscape which _does_ have encryption capabilities, they can get away with limiting the strength of the RSA signature portion because it's part of the encryption package, and because RSA signing is just encrypting with your private key instead of your public key. Someone _could_ use an RSA signature program to encrypt short data (like keys) if they wanted to work at it, and while bugs in software are of course entirely unheard of that would make this easier, there's still the risk that those Crafty Furriners might disassemble the crypto code from Netscape and reassemble it with the limits removed. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:12:04 -0700 > From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > Subject: Re: SOUP KITCHENS (fwd) > > >True enough, but not the whole story. If a dog or cat is kept well and fed > >good quality food they live 10+ years. The average life of an animal on the > >street is between 2-5 years. As to people, we now live around 75-80 years, > >prior to all these rules and regulations on food and such the average was > >20-25. If we go back to what you propose you would be dead a long time ago. > > Hardly a proved correlation. A lot of other factors come into play. But > never mind. No point arguing. But it is. I suggest you take a look at any social health text and look at the comparisons between diets of our ancestors, ourselves, and various cultures around the planet now. In places like Africa the mean age in many places is still in the early 20's. It is pretty remarkable that places that at one time had poor or subsistance diets and now have more modern diets have the average life span growing (even in places like Samoa and the Pima Indians in Mexico and the S. US where the high-fat diets are causinga marked increase in coronary problems, interesting article in this months Sci-Am) by leaps and bounds. Look at the studies which have tracked the English population over the centuries (they kept good records) and compaired physical body characteristics with food intake. It has been clearly shown that as the food got better and more plentiful the lifespan got longer and the average height got larger. Pretty strong evidence of some correlation there. I certainly feel strongly enough about it that I would not willingly eat food except in emergency conditions that I was not shure of the quality or purity. Other factors such as what? Disease? If you have a good diet then diseases like colds and Influenza (for example) are survivable. Without good diets high in Vitamen C and such you get Rickets and can die from a simple cold in as little as 3 days. Certainly if you kill off the local fauna you will increse your lifespan simply because there isn't as much to eat you when you aren't looking. But this particular threat was most present for the older and more damaged individuals. During some recent studies (5-6 years) of Cromagnon Man it was discovered that these folks were covered in broken bones, arthritic joints, spongy bones, spinabifida, etc. because of the hard life they lived having to manualy chase down the dinner and kill up close with rocks and sticks. If you get a chance try to get a peek at some of the pictures. I remember one of a girl around 16 whose knees and back looked like they belonged to somebody 80 years old. If you feel there is no point in arguing (which I don't feel we are doing since it seems pretty civil, we have widely seperate views) why resond? That is like asking somebody a person question and then when getting the answer saying you don't care. Just for the record, I am enjoying the discourse. But since you are not I won't continue this thread any longer. > >I personaly find it reassuring that some bunch of knuckle-heads are unable > >to start a chip making facility like you support. The thought of finding > >flourine compounds in the local river (where I get my tap water) or simply > >dumped in the air is a little unsettling. Just because some group of bozo's > >want to start a business is not sufficient justification for that to be > >allowed. > > A straw man. There is is no evidence that these startup companies are > dumping stuff in rivers. Jeesh. The point is that large companies learn how > to keep large staffs employed filling out paperwork, and they actually have > come to see it is a good way to keep small companies from forming. A straw man is where one claims one situation is analgous to another different situation. This is not a straw man because we are talking about the same issue but discussing the effect of size on behaviour. Motorola, AMD, Sematech, etc. have all been fined over the last years for doing just this to the waters around Austin. When I was working at Austin Community College over the last 2 1/2 years (prior to going to work for Tivoli - IBM 4 months ago) my primary responsibility was building a wafer fab training facility at the Riverside campus from donations from these folks and many others localy (Applied Material, Varian, etc.) I got to spend a lot of time in site in areas that normaly are not open to outsiders. If these big plants have problems regulating their emissions with their budget and reams of paper just image what a startup hard for cash would do if they thought they could get away with it "just this one time". I think the way Crystal Semiconductor (ie fabless) does their design is the way to go for small startups, simply rent production facilities from these other companies. I know that, for example, each of the companies here in Austin are in the process of shutting down older fabs and don't have plans to upgrade them for at least a couple of years. For somebody like Crystal that is a god send. It means they can bring products to market for costs way below what it would have originaly cost, and the larger company gets to bring in income on equipment it had originaly written off. Sounds like a win-win to me. Sorry, but a simple reading of the Austin American Statesman (admittedly a shitty paper very highly biased) will provide numerous instances of such dumps over the last few years. > >It seems to me that many of the folks who recognize downsized workers pleas > >for their 'right to a job' as so much bunk are at the same time supporting a > >businesses right to start up. A pretty humorous double standard. > > Not at all comparable. But they are for the simple reason that we are talking about two entities which each claim a right to some behaviour. And in this case directly comparable because a person working is comparable to a business working. Each provides services and expects a return. Now the argument goes with persons that a person does not have a inherent right to income. In other words if a company shuts down and they are laid off w/o any other work forthcoming it is their fault for not seeking the appropriate training and such (ie resources) to get another job with a better future. Now with business the claim is that they should have some rights comparable to persons, however they should also be given the right to open their doors for business even if they can't demonstrate some level of competency and ability to survive in the market. This is carried to the point that they should be allowed to operate without regulation or other forms of checks and balances on their actions. Now if a real person does not have a right to income if they don't posses the requisite skills why should a business be allowed to do it without showing the same sort requisite skills? Why should the local community be forced to take on the burden of such a venture simply because the business is a 'virtual' person? It is becoming pretty clear with the change in welfare (which I support) that our society does not feel an obligation to support folks for more than 2-3 years on the social dole without some return on investment. Why should the city be required to provide utilities and other services without some assurance they will get the public funds (ie your money and mine) back? We as citizens in Austin certainly don't recieve stock or other benefit from this other than the jobs it creates for persons with the requisite skill. > >I have never heard of anyone being arrested for giving away food, only > >selling it without a license. I bet the Salvation Army soup kitchen would be > >worried if this claim were true (they aren't and it ain't). > > Then you weren't reading the thread, which in several posts described this > very situation. "Food Not Bombs" was giving away soup, chile, and other > such stuff at a park in Santa Cruz (and maybe elsewhere, e.g., San > Francisco). They were busted. > Now do you understand the situation? I understand that they were arrested for the noise and such and not for the food. The reason that the permit was refused (wrongly I agree) was that the HD did not want the people out on the street causing a disturbance. What they did should be protected if it is in the right place and at the right time. The right of the poeple to assemble has an important caveat. If I may, ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If you will notice it says 'peaceably', I do not believe this should include standing on the corner with a bullhorn screaming at people. A more appropriate strategy would have been to walk over and give the government folks food also with little political pamphlets wrapped around their weenies. They would have most likely eaten their food, looked at the pamphlet, got a good chuckle and gone back to being good little prols. As the situation was at fist described is not quite how it was. This bozo apparently was on the corner with the direct intention of harrassing folks. This is uncalled for behaviour in such a situation. I agree with the conclusion that there was an alterior motive other than feeding the homeless. It sounds more like a podium for a personal tirade. Jim Choate

4 3

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 23:36:37 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: A Libertine Question (fwd) > On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Jim Choate's dog wrote: > > > Really? Then would you mind explaining why costs rise over time > > instead of going down? > > Gladly. Prices rise over time because of inflation of the money > supply. While it is possible for private actors to temporarily > inflate the money supply (e.g., extension of credit by banks), > only the government can increase the money supply indefinitely. > Inflation is the most insidious form of "taxation." It steals > silently and punishes the savings in favor of consumption. Then why didn't the costs rise at the same rate as the general inflation rate instead of tens of times faster? If the cost of airline tickets matched the rise in milk then my gallon of milk would cost over $10 instead of the $2 (this x5 factor I got from a news show the other nite, I have not verified it) it costs now (and it has remained pretty constant over the last 10 years or so arguing that something has been balancing that inflation rate). Since the inflation rate on a dollar is flat across the board in our economy simple inflation does not account for this rise in prices in a niche market. I guess it could be in the case of airlines because they have had to increase the fairs to pay for the increase in aircraft loss due to crashes and fatigue (airlines are not replacing their aircraft as fast now as they did in the regulation days, one of the reasons Beoing and other commercial companies are having such a hard time.) over the last few years as well as the rise in the price of their insurance premiums since deregulation to compensate for the increased payouts both due to increased frequency of crashes since deregulation and the increase in the payouts to the victims and their families. I would guess that insurance companies don't like paying for a multi-million dollar plane unless they have to. They are in the business of not paying off after all. > > Insurance has become involved in the medical industry, what > > happened? The cost has gone through the roof. The airplane > > industry was deregulated in the late 70's, what happened? The > > price of a ticket went up...yada yada yada. > > Technically, Jim's logical fallacy is called /post hoc, ergo > propter hoc/, after this, therefore on account of this. If it was a single case I would agree, the reason that I put several unconnected fields which share one thing, the loss of government regulation. What we are looking at is a inflation rate for unregulated commodities like milk (for example) and compare them to the difference in operating costs between a regulated versus a unregulated role. It is clear that with a increase of x5 in this area and something like < x2 in the commodities area that something is at play here other than pure inflation. > > If this is so then by your own argument, business are operated > > by people therefor they are people... > > Nope, that's not what I said. This fallacy is called a "straw > man." It is a weak or mistated opposing argument set up by a > politician or debator, etc., in order that he may attack it and > gain an easy, showy victory. A straw man is where I take one situation and compare it to another. I am taking your supposition and applying it to a economic model that fits both cases. Both businesses and individuals survive by trading their outgoing products for incoming products. The issue is whether the rules that apply to one should apply to another. If you look at the gross cash flow between a business and a individual they are identical. Since we are talking about gross cash flow in both cases it does not qualify for straw man status. > > Is your contention that because I own and > > operate a computer it should be given rights? > > Nope. Whatever gave you that idea? Your contention was that a business should enjoy some of the same rights that a person does because it was owned and operated by a person or persons. Since I own and operate my computer and it is an inanimate object like the system of rules and procedures used by a business they are comparable in this case, as is comparison to any other inanimate object. The key points here are that people have rights and your contention that because businesses are owned and operated by people they should have rights as well. My goal is to determine your litmus test (if you will) as to how you determine that a business is eligible for such right but a automobile is not. Simply saying they are different is not sufficient in this case. > > > > Businesses are a system of rules and procedures... > > > > > > Made and enforced by PEOPLE. Jim is begging the question. > > > > Which question would that be? "Should businesses be considered > > people with the same rights and priviliges?" > > Nope. You just don't get it, do you? I get it, it just doesn't make sense when looked at the way you are looking at because you have still failed to elucidate your litmus test. Obviously it is more complicated than simple ownership or else anything owned would qualify. I am simply requesting clarification of the remainder of the test. It is hard to evaluate a theory if you don't have access to the whole thing. Sorta similar to analyzing a crypto algorithm via public peer revue. Generaly considered a bad thing. Jim Choate

3 2

Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:25 1996-08-02 -0500, W.K. Woelbeling wrote: >I am looking for a source of info on crypto. While this list is of interest >to (many) people, I find that the amount of political ranting outweighs any >nuggets of information concerning cryptography. Pointers? > >Bill Just about everything on cryptography has already been said far too many times. Just read Applied Cryptography and be done with it. What remains to discuss is politics, psychology and marketing. How do you get people to use the cryptography that already exists and how will the authorities react when people do use it. Matts

1 0

Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Aug 03, 1996 14:38:59, 'Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)cyberpass.net>' wrote: >Just about everything on cryptography has already been said far too many times. >Just read Applied Cryptography and be done with it. What remains to discuss is >politics, psychology and marketing. How do you get people to use the >cryptography that already exists and how will the authorities react when people >do use it. An exemplary air-clearing for a smoke-filled agenda; and two challenging questions which may pose a High Noon amongst munitions-slingers. Bravo, Matts, for cryptic concision.

1 0

problem
by Fallen Angel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I unsubscribed from your mailing list so why am I still receiving email from it. I No longer wish to receive any more mail, so please stop it. Fallen Angel fallenangel(a)multipro.com

3 2

Re: FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This does seem to be real. CNet has a few more details: http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,2031,00.html At 08:28 PM 8/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long >anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of >the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to >their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an >aircraft. > >Transponders will be affixed to all items of luggage and all passengers. If >the system discovers a transponder on the luggage in the cargo hold without >the corresponding transponder on the passenger on board, an alarm will >sound. I am not making this up. > >As many of you know, I have long predicted subcutaneous transponders to >become widely deployed in the near future. First for child identification >and monitoring of criminals, then, as the children grow up, as universal >ID, driver license, proof of eligibility for employment, PIN substitute, >etc. > >Today, we moved a step closer to this future. > >[Note that the transponders will have to be affixed to the passenger. An >example would be a hospital style bracelet that stops working when removed. >Why embedding the transponder in a hand carried item, such as a card, will >not work is left as an exercise to the reader. Even an affixed device does >not provide perfect security. You'd really have to embed the transponder in >the body at an early age to make removal nearly impossible.] > > > >-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. > Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. > Vote Harry Browne for President. > > > >

1 0

Re: FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:56 8/3/96, David Lesher wrote: [Quoting Lucky] >> According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long >> anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of >> the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to >> their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an >> aircraft. > >I thinks they have mixed their marbles.... Nope. This from Micron's website: Editorial Contact: Julie Nash, Micron Technology, (208) 368-4400 Web Site URL http://www.micron.com Fax-on-demand: 800-239-0337 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MICRON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Boise, Idaho, August 2, 1996 - Micron Communications, Inc., today announced a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop a model Positive Passenger Baggage Matching (PPBM) system. The objective of this PPBM system is to automatically recognize when baggage has been placed on an aircraft without an associated passenger. Micron Communications intends to utilize remote intelligent communications (RIC) technology developed for its MicroStamp family of products to design a security system which will enhance current systems and provide efficient tracking of passengers and baggage. "Micron Communications is proud to be associated with products that are designed to help increase the safety of airline travel, while providing operational benefits to the industry and increasing the convenience to the traveler," said John R. Tuttle, Chairman and President of Micron Communications, Inc. "Our experience in microelectronics and systems design should enable us to develop systems that use tomorrow's technology in finding solutions to these important problems." "Once again, an Idaho company is breaking new ground," Senator Larry Craig said. "As chairman of the Congressional-White House Task Force on Terrorism, its exciting to see this kind of high-tech advancement in security being developed here at home by Micron Communications, Inc. The Positive Passenger Baggage Matching system is exactly the kind of common-sense answer we are looking for to improve airline safety and give us all greater comfort when we fly in the future, " Craig continued. Current MicroStamp-based products include the MicroStamp credit card-sized device and the MicroStamp Engine in a 20-pin, small-outline integrated circuit (SOIC) plastic package. Micron Communications believes that the MicroStamp integrated circuit is the first wireless communications technology to integrate a single-chip CMOS solution, which includes a direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) microwave-frequency radio operating at 2.45GHz, a microcontroller, and low-power static random access memory (SRAM). It also contains a synchronous serial port allowing additional memory expansion. RIC units are different from RFID tags because they have a central processing unit (CPU), memory and microwave on board. This combination allows RIC units to perform more applications than low-performance RFID tags that use older technology at lower frequencies. MicroStamp RIC units are more powerful and more flexible than RFID units. They are also smaller and cost less than other RIC units of comparable performance. Systems integrators, original equipment manufacturers or end users interested in the MicroStamp family of products should contact Micron Communications Customer Service department, 1-888-MSTAMP1, (888-678-2671). Micron Communications, Inc., is a subsidiary of Micron Technology, Inc., whose common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (NYSE) under the symbol MU. MicroStamp and MicroStamp Engine are trademarks of Micron Communications, Inc. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

2 1

Re: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org> > Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd) > > > > It isn't my interpretation. Perhaps you should have paid better attention in > > class. These issues have never been tested in a court of law in the US in > > regards to computer networks and their special nature. > > [...] > > > That is a two edged sword. Where did you get your law degree? My lawyers > > both got theirs at UT Austin Law School. Both are federal lawyers and both > > have argued before the Supreme and are currently allowed to argue before the > > Supremes. > > > I've deleted most of Jim's meanderings above, mostly because I'm > fascinated by the credentialism in the graf above. What credentials mine or the lawyers? > He implies, without directly saying so, that "his lawyers" have weighed > in on this dispute and agree with him. Hmmm, I looked back over this and I fail to see where this interpretation can be taken. Perhaps you as well read more than is on the page. If you would like to address specific issues then perhaps there would be some basis for dialog. > Of course this is hardly likely; > he advances no coherent legal theory. (Except the "public forum" > argument, which might apply to Usenet, but not cypherpunks.) I have advanced several coherent theories. My primary one being that if the 9th and 10th are included in Constitutional interpretation many of the issues, such as crypto and gun ownership, become trivial issues to resolve. As to if it applies to cpunks and other similar 'private' resources, we will just see how the court cases fall down the road. > This is attempted proof by credentalism. I call him on it. Not any more than the original comments I was responding to. Anyway, what is yoru credentials to 'call' me on it? While it may be true that you don't agree with my views that hardly carries the weight to dismiss those views out of hand. You sir, are not the legal benchmark in this country. I am simply trying to change something I see as unjust. > Okay, Jim, what _do_ your lawyers say on this? Have you asked them? I, > too, have an attorney, a civil liberties specialist and a graduate from > Princeton law. So what? Yes, I have asked them, both. They both agree that the issues that I raise have NOT been tested in a court of law in this country (or any other) and that it is possible that the inclusion of the 9th and 10th in a civil liberties case could prove quite unsettling. They have also warned me that quite a bit of current legal precedence is in fact against my views. I accept this, just as the folks who fought for womens suffrage or the end to slavery fought against societies which enacted laws and policies that while accepted by the vast majority as the status quo were never the less wrong. If my views were the commen standard we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

1 0

Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish
by sparks＠bah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<rant> Personally, I enjoy some of the rantings, although I would like a forum for new users to get some help and guidance.. perhaps they can scan my ISP to see if I have accessed some bomb making info ... </rant> >Status: U >Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 13:34:10 GMT >To: Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)cyberpass.net> >Subject: Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish >From: jya(a)pipeline.com (John Young) >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >X-PipeUser: jya >X-PipeHub: pipeline.com >X-PipeGCOS: (John Young) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk > >On Aug 03, 1996 14:38:59, 'Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)cyberpass.net>' wrote: > >>Just about everything on cryptography has already been said far too many >times. >>Just read Applied Cryptography and be done with it. What remains to >discuss is >>politics, psychology and marketing. How do you get people to use the >>cryptography that already exists and how will the authorities react when >people >>do use it. > > >An exemplary air-clearing for a smoke-filled agenda; and two challenging >questions which may pose a High Noon amongst munitions-slingers. Bravo, >Matts, for cryptic concision. > > > >

1 0

Re: AP story: Police look for Olympic bombing Internet link.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:26 PM 8/3/96, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >My local paper (a Knight-Ridder rag) printed this story -- unquestioned -- >as well. Needless to say, I think a statement like this needs to be >responded to. Letters to the editor, folks! Wouldn't it be nice to have a >press that did a little more than print what the "authorities" have to say? ... >Meanwhile, I have a question: as far as I know, no bombing has actually >been tied to the Internet in any way. Does anybody know otherwise? Even >though it's not really relevant to the principles of the debate here, it >seems worth pointing out. But, as I keep saying, this is not a very useful argument. Given that bomb-makers get their information somewhere (encyclopedia articles, books, Loompanics catalogs, etc.) and given that the Web is beginning to seriously compete with these traditional sources, I have no doubts that the Net will sooner rather than later be implicated in a bombing. If one makes the arguments the the Net should not be regulated because it has not been used to supply information for a crime, then what happens when the Net *is* implicated? That particular argument then crumbles. I prefer to argue it this way: "Sure, the Net could be used for information on bombs. So could encyclopedias, books, "Time" and "Newsweek," and CNN. So what? We don't throw out the First Amendment and our belief that people can read and write what they want just because a few bombers may gain knowledge. We don't shut down chemistry departments because bombers learn about chemistry. And so on." This is, I think, a more lasting and persuasive argument. --Tim May HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)

1 0

Anonymous Message Broadcast
by Laszlo Vecsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone implemented a simple anonymous chat system (an anonymous irc) using the technique described in Applied Cryptography 2nd edition? I'm speaking of the Anonymous Message Broadcast documented in section 6.3, it begins on page 137. Can the same system be implemented using base256 (unsigned char, 8bit ASCII) instead of the simple on/off binary method that is described in the explanation? How would it differ. Thanks. (define(RSA m e n)(list->string(u(r(s(string->list m))e n))))(define(u a)(if(> a 0)(cons(integer->char(modulo a 256))(u(quotient a 256)))'()))(define(s a)(if (null? a)0(+(char->integer(car a))(* 256(s(cdr a))))))(define(r a x n)(cond((= 0 x)1)((even? x)(modulo(expt(r a(/ x 2)n)2)n))(#t(modulo(* a(r a(1- x)n))n))))

1 0

Re: FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:21 PM 8/3/96, David Lesher wrote: >They are going to hang one of these on EVERY bag? > >At what per-unit cost? > >It's all the airlines can do to get barcode labels on each piece >that geos by, much less even a credit-card-sized gadget. And how >many will they lose??? > >THEN think of the RFI problems..... It turns out that I'm one of the early investors in a start-up company developing a very similar product, albeit (we hope) with some technological advantages. Lucky Green, for one, has met the principals in this company and can confirm what I'm saying. (I began working with them, and investing, several years ago. It was partly the long-term implications of their ideas which triggered my proposal a few years back: the "position escrow system." Under position escrow, citizen-units would voluntarily escrow their positions for access by authorized law enforcement officers, dietary compliance agents, social workers, and other interested officials. The system is voluntary, as key escrow is voluntary, in that it only applies when people leave their houses and use the public streets; they are of course free not to leave their houses, and hence not to voluntarily escrow their movements.) I heard about the Micron-FAA deal on CNN, and went to the Micron Web site for details. It's a spread-spectrum system, so it may well work in a luggage environment (though perhaps not as well as the units planned by the company I'm an investor in). The "every bag" point is feasible, though I would assume conventional luggage tags would work adequately. "Per-unit" costs could be low enough....these units will be reused many times, after all. The RFI problems are actually the least of the concerns, given the "code space" technology which is possible. (That is, tens of thousands of transponders can share the same RF spectrum in a local environment by allocation of frequencies or, even better, by using code space allocation...there are some close parallels with cryptography, of course, as there are in communications technology and spread-spectrum technology in general.) Personally, I'm not convinced that the Micron-FAA deal with accomplish much, but the authorities are rushing to "do something," so struggling Micron may get some of the largesse. (Besides, "bag escrow" will allow other agencies--such as DEA--to sniff bags for traces of cocaine residue and then automatically issue arrest orders for the citizen-unit associated with the bag. The surveillance state needs technology like this.) --Tim May HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)

1 0

Re: Information gathering by news servers
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 12.33 PM 8/2/96 -0400, Scott McGuire wrote: >How much information about what someone reads can be gathered >by a news server? Is there an anonymous way to read a public >news server, or would a server have to be set up intentionally >to allow anonymous reading? You could use the Anonymizer (http://www.anonymizer.com/) in combination with a Web Usenet archive: Dejanews, for example. (http://www.dejanews.com/) =============================================================================== David Rosoff (nihongo ga sukoshi dekiru) ---------------> drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu PGP public key 0xD37692F9 -----> finger drosoff(a)acoma.arc.unm.edu or keyservers 0xD37692F9 Key fingerprint = 25 7D AA 01 85 41 43 89 50 5A 33 76 F1 F1 99 67 Do you know who's reading your email? ---> http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/pgp/ Is it a forgery? --- I have PGP signed all email and news posts since May 1996. =============================================================================== "Relax. It's not a real alarm. They can't crack _Pentagon_ codes. Can they?" :p -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgOHcBguzHDTdpL5AQE2QAQArHuoLVA0dOJ+LddI2TumYvD/vaFrWBmI LQ3pDNlDRHdyY7u1RouVKkJbYVTvxNZCKQyaWYMgcA38eZl52V65DFq+N11Jhwm4 egCBlOlezDjPOeTk/nK25Ojavdb8ABtqGXGRFf4GwfFBQPq2kApzi8MewYEYeCJG HaofCy5FDWU= =bG1v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

FYI: CTST Conference Proceedings
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I received thei week an advertisment for the 1996 CardTech/SecureTech conference proceedings. These people have a web site at <http://www.ctst.com>, but it's really lame. (It doesn't contain this table of contents, for example) Since I am not building/using/designing smart card technology right now, I won't be buying it. However, the some of the titles caught my eye: Does anyone have access to this kind of stuff, and would they be willing to post a summary? Here's a (partial) TOC: Volume 1 - Technology Changing the face of Money The Legislature's Perspective on the Future of Money Legal and Regulatory Challenges on the Development of Digital Money Privacy and American Business Introduction to Card and Identification Technology ... Advanced Identification Technology Workshop ... Advances in Signature Verification A Proposed Standard for Biometric Decidability New Imaging Technology Enables Non-intrusive Credit Card Fraud Prevention Secure Private Key Generation using a Finderprint Photo-ID Encryption and Pattern Recognition for Counterfeit Resistance The Voice Password(tm) Chip Low-Cost Biometric Security A Direct Fingerprint Reader Smart Card Technology Seminar ... Magnetic Stripe Card Technology Seminar ... Biometric Technology Seminar ... Optical Memory Card Technology Seminar ... RFID Technology Seminar ... PC Card Technology Seminar ... 2-D Bar Code Technology Seminar ... Volume 2 -- Applications Stored Value Card Applications Seminar ... Telecommunications Applications Seminar ... Government Applications Seminar Go Beyond Security -- Build in Privacy: One Does Not Equal The Other ... A Citizen Card for Europe The Spanish Social Security Card Project (TASS) Government Cards and the Information Age Information Security Applications Seminar ... Physical Security Applications Seminar ... Financial Applications Seminar ... Retail & Loyalty Applications Seminar ... Large Scale Identifications Seminar What's New in Licensing and Department Motor Vehicles Applications Welfare ID at the Point of Transactions Using Fingerprints & 2D Bar Codes INS Card Production Strategies and Initiaitives Counterfeiting of Cards Korean IC Card Market and Trends of Development and Investment Campus-Wide CardIssuance at the State University of New York National ID Programs Around the World Trends in National ID Programs The Future of Large Scale Identification Applications Health Care Applications Seminar ... Transportation Applications Seminar ... University Applications Seminar ... -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> "We're not gonna take it/Never did and never will We're not gonna take it/Gonna break it, gonna shake it, let's forget it better still" -- The Who, "Tommy"

1 0

Re: TrustBucks
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:11 AM 8/2/96, TrustBuckFella wrote: >An alternative model of electronic money. > >Every model of electronic money I know of except one retains some degree >of centralization. There is always a central "mint", usually a bank. If >you can't find a bank that acts the way you want, you're SOL. And the >only thing that enforces non-abuse (inflation, etc) by the bank is the >equivalence of electronic money to some form of "real" money. The sole >exception is Digicash. Unfortunately, Digicash has no restraint on ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >infinite spending-into-debt. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You want to elaborate on this contention? If Alice transfers Digicash-type money to Bob, this is because Alice either bought the DC-money someplace, or already had it, or otherwise arranged with a bank to make the transaction. Maybe the bank "loaned" her money she didn't already have, but this is a completely separable issue from the form of DC-money. So what is this "restraint on infinite spending-into-debt"? Gullible lenders can always lend her vast amounts of money which she may never repay, but this is fully separable from what transfer protocol she uses to "spend" this loaned money. If, on the other hand, your point is something about inflation, this is also separable. Digicash and other forms of electronic money are generally not currencies per se, but are a kind of transfer order, more like a check. As such, not directly implicated in the issue of inflation. >I'm not going to try to develop the cryptographic protocols for >TrustBucks. I haven't got the requisite paranoia and pickiness >(compliments both) for that. TrustBucks also has nothing in the way of >anonymity and restraint on double-spending right now. If you can see how >it could be anonymous or restrain double-spending and still work, please >feel free to add. No protocols. No anonymity. No protection against double-spending. Looks promising. Keep us informed. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09.02 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Alan Olsen wrote: >>Can you name another business that has comparable mark-ups? > >Verisign? > >InterNic Domain name registration? > >Licence plates in Washington state? All the money they could possibly make is peanuts compared to the colossal rip-off of compact discs. :) =============================================================================== David Rosoff (nihongo ga sukoshi dekiru) ---------------> drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu PGP public key 0xD37692F9 -----> finger drosoff(a)acoma.arc.unm.edu or keyservers 0xD37692F9 Key fingerprint = 25 7D AA 01 85 41 43 89 50 5A 33 76 F1 F1 99 67 Do you know who's reading your email? ---> http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/pgp/ Is it a forgery? --- I have PGP signed all email and news posts since May 1996. =============================================================================== "Relax. It's not a real alarm. They can't crack _Pentagon_ codes. Can they?" :p -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgOXvxguzHDTdpL5AQGzyQP/cDvyqIPmlU1Gg6BE+4u4GQb/RNe6LPa8 AR8fqae+dnEMsqRBF5ChEXNwNDxXCMzxVF0xXhVytlLUonlPpKCTL5E3YZ7nrj5/ SkO0/QpnyqTH1wzb6dV9RBcSxF0+V6EWX1rbHEqfXna52qWOCjDsaH3Wno5FZGJF O60tNSmcVcE= =8vn1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: More evidence that democracy is bunk
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 8/3/96, Martin Minow wrote: >At last month's SAFE (crypto policy) conference, one of the >legislators mentioned that someone snuck the text of the >Fourth Amendment into the crime bill, and it was voted down >in committee. > >(It would be nice to dig this out of a transcript, so it doesn't >become an urban legand.) I remember when this originally happened. It was on the news. But I thought it happened in the full House. Should be in the Congressional Record. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0