December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: NYT Libertarian News
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Mike McNally says: >> John Young writes: >> > . . . now comes retired Lieut. Col. James (Bo) Gritz >> >> Mr. Gritz has been usenet flame fodder for quite some time. He's >> either a crypto-fascist (no, not that kind of crypto) or a saviour of >> the American Way, depending on your personal leanings. > >The word "nut" comes to mind... > I hate to correct you, but that's "nut^3" :-) Dave Merriman - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finger merriman(a)metronet.com for PGP/RIPEM public keys and fingerprints. Unencrypted Email may be ignored without notice to sender. PGP preferred. Remember: It is not enough to _obey_ Big Brother; you must also learn to *love* Big Brother.

1 0

Key Forfeiture, not Key Escrow
by Philip Zimmermann 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Government seems to choose its terminology carefully in cases where that terminology can affect the politics of a situation. I suggest that we start referring to key escrow as "key forfeiture". Philip Zimmermann

3 2

Re: Hitler's not dead is he?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by nobody(a)jpunix.com (Anonymous) on Wed, 5 Oct 1:51 AM >P.S. Lewis McCarthy wrote: "Quick, somebody mention >Hitler". Okay. Mr. McDonald is as fascist as Hitler. Er, Hitler was a National Socialist. In those days, as now, everyone used the term indiscriminately, just like "fascist", "free market", "capitalist", "commie", and so on. Everybody gotta try to be more entertainingly original and it ain't easy, at least for me. Play the cryptography game, where no one knows for sure what's real or phony, where anyone can talk the talk like Jim Bidzos, and so on. We're all in the same doodoo together, name-calling by anonymous crypto or not, and so on it goes. John (looking for people wanting to sell ad space on their sigs; I been educated to buy into others stuff rather than think up something original, that's why I post so much from the NYT.)

1 0

private assets in the world
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some interesting figures recently wafted my way about the sizes of private asset holdings in the world. These are Goldman, Sachs estimates. 4 Trillion (10^12) dollars in total worldwide personal assets 2 Trillion of that is secretly held assets 1.5 Trillion of the secretly held assets are in Switzerland Mighty interesting numbers indeed. Eric

1 0

ClearSig Bug in PGP?
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can anyone explain the clearsig bug to me, and is there a fix? thnaks man, i;ve been out for a while/

2 1

Re: NYT Libertarian News
by System Operator 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

merriman(a)metronet.com (David K. Merriman) writes: > >Mike McNally says: > >> John Young writes: > >> > . . . now comes retired Lieut. Col. James (Bo) Gritz > >> > >> Mr. Gritz has been usenet flame fodder for quite some time. He's > >> either a crypto-fascist (no, not that kind of crypto) or a saviour of > >> the American Way, depending on your personal leanings. > > > >The word "nut" comes to mind... > > > > I hate to correct you, but that's "nut^3" :-) However you may feel personally about Mr. Gritz (and his connection to Ross Perot, etc), I think he serves at least three useful purposes for other members of society who might be labelled "loose cannons", to wit: 1) When the Sierra Club was working for their particular agenda in the early seventies, many in the "mainstream" dismissed them as whackos on the extreme edge. Later, when Earth First came along and redefined what the environmental movement could become, suddenly the Sierra Club was a reasonable, legitimate voice with which those in authority could reason. Mr. Gritz, IMHO, is in part helping to redefine the "envelope" of so-called patriotism. His extreme measures may serve to help legitimize less unusual actions which are now considered "out there." 2) He serves as a lightning rod for government enforcement. It is often in the best interests of those in power not to drawn the line of acceptable/not acceptable behavior (keep 'em guessing). His actions (and those of Randy Weaver, David Koresh, etc) all drawn attention to the willingness of the government to "do something." It then becomes more possible to predict the actions of certain government agencies. 3) It keeps said agencies busy. Contrary to popular opinion, the resources of the government are not infinite (it only seems that way). The government is more like a few dozen lumbering Goliaths, each stumbling after whichever David is most irritating at the moment. Mr. Gritz serves as the decoy to lure certain giants away from other activites. Federal agents and other resources devoted to gathering intelligence on Mr. Gritz are no longer available to gather intelligence on others. [This resource allocation problem, IMHO, is one the main reasons for the FBI's insistence on the Digital Telephony Bill -- it allows a far greater degree of "intelligence" gathered per expenditure of resource.] Nutty or not, I'll be happy to cheer on Mr. Gritz. > Dave Merriman Dan -- system(a)decode.com (System Operator) Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS +1 410 730 6734 Data/FAX

1 0

Tcl citations from Cyphernomicon
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Richard Stallman of GNU on Tcl > Date: Wed, 05 Oct 1994 10:46:50 -0400 > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)imsi.com> > > > Fascinating, but why are you sending this to cypherpunks? > > Harry Bartholomew says: > > > > On gnu.announce of 9/23, he writes "Why you should not use Tcl". > > Instead, those wanting to use the Tk tools are commended to a > > Scheme interpreter with it called STk. Available from: > > ftp.cs.indiana.edu:pub/scheme-repository/imp/STk-2.1.tar.Z > For the grep-impaired, see sections 4.5.4 and particularly 13.4.14 of Tim's opus for Tcl relevance to Cypherpunks.

1 0

Re: your mail
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)access.digex.net> wrote: > Anonymous scripsit > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > > That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a > > > "Cypherpunk victory." > > > > > > 1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export > > > restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, > >low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, > >or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage > >dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are > >markedby their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical > >devices). > > It is you who have overgeneralized. No limits on technology certainly > does not mean allowing low tech and poor incinerators to continue operating. > The fact that low mileage cars still drive is a result of poor markets > than anything else (baring colletables). How would you argue that some > low mileage cars are the result of a no limitations on technology policy? A lack of mileage standards, which are regulations on technology, can be expected to result in technology that doesn't meet the standard. > Unsafe medical devices? I would say this is a problem with testing > technology, not a lack of limitation on technological advance. If medical devices are sold without ANY limitation, e.g. the requirement that they be safe and effective, the result is unsafe equipment. Improved testing technology isn't useful if there's no requirement to use it. And "the market" is composed of people who have neither the expertise to test the equipment before they consent to its use, nor (in the case of someone's who's bleeding or in labor) the time. > Genetically tampered food? Why is this dangerous? Have any evidence? > Most of the livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way > or another, be it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or > genetic/hormonal therapy. You see this as a regression? In some cases, yes, I see problems in biotech. For example, hormones used in cattle in high doses are known to cause tumors in women in low doses. Whether people would choose to eat horemone-treated meat is debatable; I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by cypherpunks as an article of faith. Without regulation on the technology, even an innocuous labeling requirement, the right to choose is taken away because consumers can't detect the difference between hormone-treated beef and organic beef. > You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote and > regulation designed to deter technological advance. Technological advance is a means to an end. Regulations should properly be about insuring the public welfare. While we might reasonably disagree about what that welfare is, clearly technological anarchy doesn't promote it. > Market > forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost. I propose this boost > be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market assisters and > privatization. Either the market works or it doesn't. You can't decry all government regulation and then call for handouts to businessmen. > When Germany wanted to promote environmentally sound > packaging and manufacture, they started a program called Gruun Punkt (The > Green Point) They allow manufactures to place the green point sticker on > their products provided they meet XYZ specifications. Actually, I think this is a great way to proceed. ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpKieKvOblMnt4MdAQH72wP+NiE1e/wGy5t2XZla3gRXLRRGpCFeEX5J YtcKLqbym/pV9XRLBuEGIETnrsmJoOrWN+PDlzW02HXRmiad+Wbf1jp/QjPwXkQm 0ysSrrTIkZMsjIlY5ffxzwR8LzQZMhAMliFmFjhE8rAz/fLAqY1N+kT7NLiPyP54 TPOVSSyEhKU= =1dU3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 7

Re: Chomsky (thread from hell)
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Gary Jeffers" <CCGARY(a)MIZZOU1.missouri.edu> wrote: > I remember Chomsky being quoted (I think in a Mother Jones issue) > something to the effect that the opposition to "political correctness" > was not legitimate. Apparently, Chomsky finds at least one kind of > oppression to be not distasteful. > At a Chomsky lecture that I attended, Chomsky described himself as a > left libertarian. I surmise that he finds that grassroots oppression by > the left to be ok. I realize, of course, that "political correctness" > has great mass media & State support. Please post direct, in-context quotes from Chomsky to substantiate your claims, or stop making them. This demonization of Chomsky is so tiresome. ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpKaIavOblMnt4MdAQEwdQQAu1ztK8Wn9DRaANtklfbXBLZUAw0jRvKI f80gO3YLPZgOqUQV9j9AvoDl8Zqrsonm00gXxo2m7EIoZQtG5MIq9722kzEsxUzS aDipQM3bS9VRDtRrU4UhI5pl730yP6SulcpxRXv65OcSTJOsPNj40U0wC9tipeTk jiPoRSZ71Yg= =2CWO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Chomsky quote (thread from hell)
by nobody＠jpunix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) wrote: > > >Noam Chomsky, in a 4/16/94 e-mail response to a question from Steve > >Shalom, says: > > > > In my opinion, not only mainstream intellectuals but also others > > who produce a constant stream of lies, distortion, racist screeds, > > etc., should be permitted freedom of speech. The state should not > > have the power to stop them. The same freedom extends to > > hypocrites, like faculty senates who choose one particularly and > > usually quite marginal example because career and power interests > > are served thereby, while ignoring vastly more significant and > > awful cases because the opposite is true. And Congress, of which > > the same is correct. > [utterly specious reasoning deleted] > Thus he is actually making a misleading and spurious > argument *against* freedom of speech at the same time as he > is piously declaring himself to be in favor of freedom of > speech. Leaving aside the fact that you've somehow managed to "prove" to yourself that Chomsky means the opposite of what he clearly and consistently says, what has this to do with cypherpunks? ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpKchqvOblMnt4MdAQGl2wP8DpmSTLSR+H3xQJY/ygEbVzABPZu436eV vAiJNcNV+PoPw5Bg6p3IBowP40JcYoqjn6Va0PomkLxdWyluwGFlNnorsb2Lq8e8 KOhzMlmnX1CIlXYfxXQxN3wCSYVqDfdhbw/9l/ZLVLWLLT+TH/NFNrj3WIhEmuWJ yXHkKKcHWwM= =ot7V -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0