December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com>: >>You stole from me. >>*BANG* > >yep > >>You raped my sister >>*BANG* > >yep > >As is the first two cases the "criminal" has violated my property & >family. Such crimes are worthy of immediate death. You steal, you >assault >or threaten me or my family you have committed suicide. > >It is a quite simple and effective philosophy: > >"You fuck with me, my family, or my property you die. You leave me >alone >and I leave you alone." > >Even someone like you can understand such a philosophy. Well, I can't. It's very confusing. Are there judges in your philosophy, or do you just decide for yourself who to shoot? "You walked on my property." BANG. "Your music kept me awake all night." BANG. "I warned you to cut that tree down, and now it fell on my house." BANG. Or how about escalation: "You raped my daughter" "No way, she wanted it as much as I did" "That's not what she tells me. You die." BANG. "You shot my son" "Bullshit, he had it coming after what he did to my daughter." "Bullshit yourself." BANG. "You shot my pa" "He shot my son" "You're gonna die." "I'm taking you with me then." BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. You know, there's a reason people started using judges to help settle disputes. There's a reason the common law evolved with the idea of proportionate response and restitution. This kind of shoot-everybody-I-think-harmed-me approach just doesn't work. Nobody knows what someone else will consider harm worth shooting over. If somebody disagrees that a shooting was justified, they'll shoot back, and feuds begin. The current system stinks, but your idea is no better. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

3 3

US Seeks to Stay Bernstein Court Order
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded-by: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar(a)wired.com> >From Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/6436.html US Seeks to Stay Court's Crypto Order by Rebecca Vesely 6:02pm 27.Aug.97.PDT The Justice Department is seeking an emergency stay of a ruling by a US District Court in San Francisco that granted a University of Illinois professor permission to export his encrypted email program. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in Bernstein v. Department of State that Daniel Bernstein can export his Snuffle program and make it available online without an export license. Her landmark ruling holds that software programs are literary works protected under the First Amendment. The Justice Department told Bernstein attorney Cindy Cohn on Wednesday afternoon that it will seek an emergency stay on the preliminary injunction allowing Bernstein to export Snuffle. The department is expected to file papers Wednesday night or Thursday morning, Cohn said. Justice officials were not immediately available for comment. "This is serious," Cohn said. "They feel that national security will be breached. But our opinion is that he has the right to publish his material." In what is called an ex parte emergency stay, the Justice Department asked Patel to reconsider her decision to grant a preliminary injunction. If Patel decides not to reverse her decision, the department can ask the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to override her decision. "It is unlikely Patel will give it to them," said John Gilmore, founding board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was a primary sponsor of Bernstein in the case. "If she does, we will continue with the appeal process and try to make the decision stick." The decision could affect not just the fate of Bernstein's research, but the US encryption export policy. Patel said in her decision that current export encryption regulations "are an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." Copyright =A9 1993-97 Wired Ventures Inc. and affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

1 0

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:18 AM 8/27/97 +0100, Adam Back wrote: >It's a distributed system, it's more resilient to abuse than >governments. > >If one person becomes too much of a nuisance (real trigger happy for >ultra minor infractions -- swearing at them, daring to look at them >when they're in a bad bood) relatives, friends, or concerned citizens >will correct (fill trigger happy person with lead). > >That's how the wild west worked anyway... outlaws didn't last that >long. > >So you're relying on other peoples sense of fairness ... should easily >work out better than governments. > Ever heard of mob violence? Read up on the Salem witch trials when a bunch of people got together and murdered a bunch of thier own on the evidence of the rantings of a few girls. Don't forget hitler, who managed to swing an entire country against a ever growing list of minorities. Granted, this was from within government, but the principle is the same. Anarchy is good, as long as an us versus them mentality doesn't occur. That would require a far more homogenious population than we have now. If everyone had the same skin color, hair color, eye color, bone structure, and color of socks, war would eventually break out over who lived on which side of the river.

3 2

Re: heart
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:49 PM 8/27/97 -0700, Kent Crispinu wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 27, 1997 at 12:49:42PM -0400, Sean Roach wrote: >> At 11:55 PM 8/26/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >[...] >> >> Pretty soon every revolver will have a warning label. "Warning, misuse of >> this tool can result in injury and death. By handling this item you consent >> to bear all legal responsibility reguarding its use." Never mind that such >> should be implied. > >Product liability issues are more prominent when something doesn't >function as it is supposed to -- say you are trying to defend >yourself against a thief, and the gun blows up in your face. This is >not the same as assuming legal liability for when you shoot someone. > >Arguably, even then you should not be able to sue -- the small >aircraft industry has been decimated by product liability issues. >And I remember when Chouinard went out of the climbing equipment >business because of threat of lawsuits. > >My understanding is that warning labels -- even signed liability >releases -- are of limited use in these cases, because, while you can >sign a binding contract that limits your ability to sue, you cannot >so bind your survivors. I wasn't referring to when the things work improperly. I was referring to cases specifically like the lawsuit brought against the makers of the TEC-9 because some idiot used one on an office building full of people and it had the odassity to work.

3 2

Sweden's Social Democrats Sterilize the Inferior
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >From: David Boaz <dboaz(a)cato.org> >Subject: Social Democrats Sterilize the Inferior > >Surprisingly, the revelations about 40 years of forced sterilizations by the >Social Democratic governments in Sweden generated only small stories in the >New York Times and the Washington Post. I'm sure they would have been >equally uninterested in revelations about forced sterilization in, say, >Thatcher's Britain. Be sure to read to the last line of the story where at >last the AP pins it directly on the Social Democrats' ideas. > > > >By JIM HEINTZ >.c The Associated Press > >STOCKHOLM, Sweden (Aug. 25) - They were found to be ''inferior,'' flawed by >bad eyesight, mental retardation or ''undesirable'' racial characteristics. >To prevent this genetic heritage from being passed on, they were sterilized - >sometimes involuntarily. > >Sweden had as many as 60,000 of its own citizens sterilized between 1935 and >1976. Adults and children were singled out by doctors, school authorities or >other officials and were pressured to consent to the procedures. > >This sterilization program bore chilling similarities to Nazi ideas of racial >superiority - and media reports on it now are provoking sober >self-examination. > >The program stemmed from the pursuit of eugenics, a once-popular movement to >improve humanity by controlling genetic factors in reproduction. > >Though Sweden's sterilization program was a matter of record, it received >little public attention, ignored in schoolbooks and hardly mentioned in >reference works. A recent series by the prestigious newspaper Dagens Nyheter, >however, has stirred national debate. > >Especially shocking to many Swedes is the fact that the law allowing the >sterilizations wasn't overturned until 1976, three decades after the Nazis' >human engineering policies collapsed in the rubble of the Third Reich. > >The sterilizations targeted a wide range of people: those of mixed race; >unmarried mothers with several children; people judged to be habitual >criminals; even a boy considered ''sexually precocious.'' > >''Grounds for recommending sterilization: unmistakable Gypsy features, >psychopathy, vagabond life,'' reads one document cited by Dagens Nyheter. > >Maria Nordin, 72, told the newspaper she had been sterilized in 1943 because >she was regarded as mentally inferior. > >''One day, the (school) superintendent said I should come into his room to >sign some papers. I understood what this was about so I ran into a toilet and >sat there and cried for a long time for myself,'' she said. > >Sweden, with its well-developed welfare state and long-standing progressive >stances on social issues, is not accustomed to being on the defensive on >ethical issues. > >''This is a frightening picture that now is being shown to the Swedish >people,'' Alf Svensson, chairman of the opposition Christian Democratic >Party, said in a letter to Prime Minister Goeran Persson. > >Social Minister Margot Wallstroem says she is considering whether to >compensate people who were forcibly sterilized. That would require >overturning current law that says the victims can't get compensation because >the sterilizations were lawful when performed. > >Nordin applied for compensation last year but her request was turned down by >Wallstroem, who now says she feels ashamed over the matter. > >''I will take up the matter for discussion with the government. It is the >least I can do,'' the Cabinet minister said. > >The Dagens Nyheter report has hit Swedes at a time when they were already >examining some painful history from World War II. The government, under >increasing international pressure, is looking into whether property looted by >the Nazis from Jews in other countries ended up in Sweden. > >The issue of forced sterilization stands to be even more troublesome, because >it was conducted under the ostensibly benign gaze of the Social Democrats - >that party that built Sweden's welfare state and proclaimed it a paragon of >enlightened government. > >''The Social Democrats are implicated in a collective guilt,'' said Social >Minister Wallstroem, herself a member of the party. > >The sterilization programs can be traced to turn-of-the-century enthusiasm >for eugenics. > >The movement had adherents in many countries, but ''Sweden was the first in >the world to grant this pseudoscience official recognition,'' Dagens Nyheter >wrote in describing how Sweden established an Institute of Racial Biology in >1921. > >Not only did eugenics foresee an improved human race, it also was appealing >to Social Democrats, who were beginning to see that Sweden's welfare state >would be costly and wanted to limit the number of people who would have to be >supported, the newspaper said. > > AP-NY-08-25-97 1903EDT > > >

3 2

hello
by Alexis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there anybody that can tutor me how to hack, crack, phrank, and cryptomography ( i'm not sure i speel that last part correctly. I would like to get some help, please email me back ASAP thank you so very much recall.

2 1

Re: Stewart Baker on Bernstein encryption decision (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

V.Z.Nuri wrote, in reaction to Stewar Baker's message: >*spit* [...] fraudulent camel's back. soon let the whole corrupt >structure fall like the rotten house of cards that it is. [...] >SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT, even as they >wallow daily in their own hypocrisy. > >[...]the horrid and repulsive episode [...] >when in the course of human events it become necessary to expunge a >parasite... [...] >(if so, it would be the one of the least vile and sleazy tactics employed >so far in the whole sorry affair.) > >[...] sarcastic contempt I feel for you and your despicable cohorts [...] .......................................... Like, have you tried to export software lately, L.D.? You're taking this rather personally. Your heart-felt, warm&fuzzy message to Mr. Baker, who doesn't know you from anyone (except that you posted from that scum-bag pot of cypherpunk-infestation (those poisonous tentacles of Medusa), I'm sure will instill in him a deep regret for his past attitude; he'll probably recant his past, become a born-again Christian, and join the list. Eloquent, informative statements from other noteworthy representatives of the technology industry, spoken even at meetings where Mr. Baker was personally present, and even directly to him by the likes of TCM, could not, I'm sure be as persuasive as the *spit*ting and lowly modifying terms which you slew in his direction. An intellectually uplifting debate on the subject, bringing into view incontestable points of fact, could not surely be as convincing as this upchuck of verbiage from deep within yourself, where you keep your stash of special words selected for their ability to clarify difficult issues. Goodness, next you'll be agreeing with TCM that "they should all be nuked". You might even begin consider a special venue for achieving this, such as.........Blacknet? .. Blanc

2 1

Re: Reuter on Bernstein Ruling
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is Snuffle on line anywhere now? If not, anyone got a source? Or is Dan reserving the honor?

5 5

Re: Welfare Solution #389
by Alex Le Heux 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 06:32 8/26/97 -0400, you wrote: [...] >>It's this attitude that creates most of the drug 'problem' for society. >>It's not the drugs. People can function fine while enjoying their hits of >>beer, weed, coke or whatever. It's the ciminalisation of some drugs and >>the attitude of people like William H. Geiger III that make the drug user >>outcasts from society. > >You are making unfounded assumptions of my position on drug use. > I see that I did. No problem, plenty of new stuff here to keep the argument going... >I really could care less about someone who uses drugs on a recreational >basis and is able to buy his drugs with his/her/its *own* money. I think >it is a total waste for those who prefer to spend their life drooling in a >corner with a needle in their arm and/or crack pipe in their hand. Even so >if they or their families are wealthy enough to support this behavior more >power to them. > >What I strongly object to is my hard earned $$$ being stolen from me to >support this behavior either in the form of taxes spent on Welfare & SS or >(for the more ambitious junkie) stolen/robbed directly. > >As a Libertarian I am all for the legalization of drugs. Our current >politicians seem incapable of learning from the past that prohibition >never works and causes more problems than it solves (Econmics 101 supply & >demand). > I suppose you believe that a drug addict has no one to blame but himself, and that he should take _all_ of the blame. I don't. They certainly deserve some credit for the mess they're in, but not entirely. Bad luck has a lot to do with it as well. Just like getting blown off a cliff by the wind. You shouldn't have been there, you should have been strong enough not be blown off, etc.... Also, it being the druggie's fault or not, treating him as an outcast is not going to solve the problem. It'll only make it worse. For him, and for the rest of us. What works much better is treating his addiction more like a disease. This is what we do in The Netherlands. We have few junkies living in the street, rarely does a granny get her head blown off for a nickle and a dime. Also the mortality rate under the junkies is very low, although I suspect you don't see that as a good thing. The 'drug problem' as it exists in most places in this world is the result of the mindboggeling numbers of people living in tiny spaces. It is a problem of us all, so the bill ends up with us all. Procecuting the addict only serves to drive up that bill. Killing him is certainly the cheap option, but a healthy society takes care of it's members, even if they mess up so spectacularly. Several programs, in The Netherlands and Switzerland and probably other places, have shown that by far the cheapest and least painful solution for all is just to give the man his drugs. In fact, Switzerland is doing just that with it's heroin addicts. As it turns out most of them get some sort of life back together, a lot even manage to get and hold jobs and thus become productive citizens dispite their addiction. >I also believe, as a Libertarian, that I have the "GOD given right" to >defend myself, my family, and my property, with deadly force if needed >(and I am the one who gets to decide when such force is needed not some >bureaucrat in DC). > Alex -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNAMoqtuYAh4dUSo/EQK4agCggmF6hyfTkoR8hkEF6Lq7hPP15M0AoKC0 514gFnHTR2QkDuIXFF41S3Q1 =aK4Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

[NOISE] Re: Notes from NIS&T Key Escrow Export conference.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:04 PM 9/7/95 -0500, you wrote: >> Sorry for the typo, yes, I meant sham, fake, theater, all smoke and >> mirrors, nothing sincere, etc. See reference to "stage" above. >> >In this context, I think burlesque fits remarkably well. ;) >(Brings to mind a bunch of cross-dressors doing big theatre numbers >in exotic costumes) "I never wanted to be an eavesdropper - I wanted to be a ... lumberjack!" #--- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0664 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 #---

1 0