December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Going Postal (Was: Boom!)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:22 8/8/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >I just had some Evil Smokeless Powder delivered to me via UPS. (The Post >Office people will not handle this stuff...it either violates their union >contracts or management is afraid the employees will use it to go postal >with.) A while back, I ordered some "I love Explosives" bumper stickers from an explosives dealer in New Mexico. They also ship black powder via UPS to anyone. Twenty pounds maximum. -- 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: Boom!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:43 PM 8/8/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >So, if it turns out that TWA 800 was an accidental wing tank explosion, will >they give us our civil liberties back? If not, why not? > You must be kidding. Civil rights (the real ones, not the affirmative action/antidiscrimination bullshit kind) only get constricted. The government only tightens the noose, it never loosens it. On a related note, it looks like Richard Jewell, the "Olympic Bomber," may not be charged and may even receive a page 37B "letter of clarification" from the Feds. No word on what the pack of 100 media vultures camped in his apartment's driveway will say. I suspect he will never live a normal life. Even if never charged, the splashing of private photos from his apartment--such as him cradling an AR-15 while dressed in camo--will stick in people's minds. What recourse does he have that camera crews were invited in on the searches? (*) (* In my local large city, San Jose, the cops used to invite the tabloid t.v. crews in on busts of suspected drug dealers. Kickbacks were probably involved. Anyway, the Fox network used to send camera crews in with the cops who kicked down doors, getting juicy coverage for "reality t.v." shows like "Cops." People in their underwear, people crying, people naked (Fox covered up the naughty bits digitally). After a privacy invasion lawsuit filed by one of the raided parties--I don't recall if they were ever found guilty or not, not that it matters--the cops stopped inviting the camera crews along. Judging by what I still see on t.v., other cities haven't stopped the practice. Surely a raid by cops, justified or not, does not give me, or you, or KCBS t.v. to tag along and enter a private home with our tape recorders and cameras rolling.) --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: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:25 AM 8/8/96 -0700, Alan wrote: > It will be interesting to see the state come out on the side of all those > anonymous drivers. The state wants people to be anonymous from each other, but not anonymous from the state. This ensures that we are dependent on the state for the maintenance of civilized behavior. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: PRACTICAL USES FOR DMV RECORDS
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:47 AM 8/9/96 -0700, you wrote: >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >C'punks, > >On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> The Oregon DMV database needs a new home. I've seen a few >> mentions of willing volunteers,... > >It probably needs a whole new domain. How 'bout: > > burglary.org > >That way, when burglars see an Oregon car loaded with a family >heading south into California on vacation, they can just go on >line and get those folks' address from the database. > >Afterwards, a thank you note to Oregon's DMV would be in order. > > Currently they can stop in at the DMV, say something to the effect "this car hit my dog", pay $4 cash and never even have to take off the ski mask. The DMV has no ID requirements for giving out this information. It has without a doubt already been bought and sold many times to marketing companies ("Hey this guys got an old Toyota"), insurance companies, private investigators, thieves and mobsters, and at least one person on our side. Until there is such a thing as the "anonymous citizen" public data might as well be as public as it gets. This "for those who know" policy is pervasive and must end. --j Oregonian and in that database

1 0

Re: Drive the SF Central Freeway, have your license plate photo'ed.
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:55 8/8/96, i am not a number! wrote: >CBS radio news this morning: 80,000 commuters traveling the central >f'way in SF will have information mailed to them regarding the quake >retrofit blah blah. > >How? Their license plates have been photographed. >... and the cheery "news" anchorwoman sweetly moved on to the next >story..... You *are* making this up, right? Please say you did. -- 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: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:49 AM 8/9/96, John F. Fricker wrote: >Isn't that the role of legislation? To implement solutions that society >would not do on it's own? > >The enabling technology is obviously off the self. > >I think you may have misinterpretted my last sentence which was supposed to >have had a ? at the end. Where's the proof reader when you need one! "To implement solutions that society would not do on it's own?" Would not do, or could not do? It is within anyone's power to ask their psychiatrist what form of encryption he uses to protect his files. Likewise with doctors and hospitals. (Though I freely admit that one would not be likely to get very far. For at least the next decade or two, the reaction will likely be "Huh?" But "legislation" mandating a form of encryption is not the answer. For many reasons.) On this list at least, calls for passing laws to implement societal solutions are not usually smiled upon. This is not to say such discussions are out of bounds, only that you'd better make some persuasive arguments and not just appeal to our common sense sympathies for social engineering and more laws. --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: Going Postal (Was: Boom!)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 17:50 8/8/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >The Post Office has now jumped on the terrorist bandwagon by >announcing that it will no longer be legal to drop any package >weighing over 16 ounces into a collection box. > >Larger packages will have to be presented in person at the >Post Office, and I wouldn't be surprised if several forms of >ID were required. We'll see the day. >Should wreak havoc with the mail order video tape rental business, >with those handy pre-paid 4th class labels you just slap on the >tapes before dropping in the nearest mailbox. A video tape weighs less than a pound. >I suspect one could do a lot of damage to a mailbox with under 16 >ounces of the proper explosive. Perhaps one of our resident >Cypherpunks bomb experts could expand on this subject. Sixteen ounces of C4 will do you right. It was only 12 ounces that brought down the Pan Am flight over Scotland. -- 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

Why should we trust the system?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When supporting plans like GAK ("key escrow") and wiretaps, you will frequently see the Denning-types justify them by claiming that there's protection from a requirement that a judge issue a search warrant. It should be instructive, then, to present the Richard Jewell case as an excellent counter-example. Richard Jewell, as you should all be aware, is the poor soul who happened to first see that pipe bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. However, hours after it was publicly revealed that the Atlanta 911 center screwed up, wasting 10 minutes looking up the address of "Centennial park," officialdom suddenly discovered they needed news to divert attention from their buffoonery. They found it, as if on cue. Tonight, I saw a national network news show say how Jewell is apparently quite innocent, and that the news media was quite willingly "used" by the government to convict Jewell in the press. Great mea culpa, but that still leaves some serious questions. Presumably, the government got warrants to search Jewell's apartment, correct? Okay, what evidence did they use to support the granting of those warrants? What, EXACTLY, did they tell the judge that ostensibly convinced him to grant a warrant? Remember, police aren't supposed to get a warrant simply if they can't prove that a person is NOT a bomber. The standard is suppose to work the other way around: The police should get a warrant only if the amount of evidence of guilt (or, evidence of evidence) is sufficiently detailed to rise to a certain level of authority, known as "probable cause." Evidence doesn't evaporate. More precisely, the police had a responsibility to collect enough evidence together, POSITIVELY, to be able to show probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred, and that Jewell was guilty. Some of that evidence might, hypothetically, have initially appeared to show guilt and was later clarified, but that early evidence must still exist, to at least show the public that the cops didn't entirely fabricate the justifications they used to get the warrants. So I ask again, did the police/FBI EVER have enough evidence to convince anyone by that "probable cause" standard? Well, if they say they had it in the case of Richard Jewell, that isn't very reassuring. Okay, I'll admit that I _never_ believed that judges actually follow the standards they claim to. But many other people of those who are more establishmentarian than I (I guess that group includes just about everybody, huh?) at least pretend to believe this, or hope this, and maybe a few suckers actually do. It should be their responsibity, then, to show that the granting of a search warrant occurs only when justified. In Jewell's case, that was not the case. If we allow this fiasco to die without a full analysis, particularly in light of the government's repeated assurances with regards to search warrants, we will be as incompetent as the police were. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Imprisoned for Not Having a Gun?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:57 AM 8/9/96, The Deviant wrote: >I agree with you. I don't have anything against guns, but either >requiring them or disallowing them is just plain dumb. It should be >noted that the Supreme Court's interpretaion of "Congress shall make no >law" is basicly "no lawmaking body that holds any jurisdiction shall make >no law"... On this last point, I used to think so, too. However, one of the law professors on one of these lists gave various examples purporting to show that this is not so, that local jurisdictions can and do pass laws which Congress is not permitted to pass. If they read this, they can comment. --Tim 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

alien life found
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

it's no good them showing up now. welfare for alien life forms, even if they are just germ life forms, is definitely out, as of right now, so they shouldn't even ask. -paul crypto relevance? it's obviously, isn't it? > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Aug 7 18:47:42 1996 > X-Sender: schryver(a)radiks.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 05:20:33 -0500 > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: Scott Schryvers <schryver(a)radiks.net> > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 380 > > NBC News at Sunrise has just announced the discovery of alien life on the > planet Mars. The lifeform that became extinct more than 2 billion years > ago was found as a fossil in a meteor that originated from mars and landed > on earth. The fossil found was a primitive germ life form. > > PGP encrypted mail preferred. > E-Mail me for my key. > Scott J. Schryvers <schryver(a)radiks.net> > >

1 0